|
Excerpts from page 169
While many Americans feared the consequences of the
Gideon decision and shuddered at Miranda,
both cases have stood the test of time as compelling
contributions to legal and cultural history. And for
good reason. Until Gideon, a suspect did not have
a clearly defined constitutional right to counsel in
state courts. Until Miranda, a suspect did not
have a clearly announced constitutional right to counsel
prior to questioning by state police. As Attorney
General Robert F. Kennedy said of Gideon, “The
whole course of American legal history has changed.”
Criminal defense lawyers, like Craig Mehrens, were also
profoundly impacted by Gideon. “I cannot imagine
an accused facing the judicial system without an
attorney,” said Mehrens. “Even with counsel, the fight
is always uphill: a Sisyphusian affair. In addition,
although notoriety is usually spotlighted on retained
counsel, I know that it is the public defenders of this
country that do the heavy lifting - who protect every
day the constitutional rights of so many people, for so
little pay, for little thanks, and in such adverse
conditions. Gideon’s trumpet still plays for them. And
what a clarion call it is.”
Dickerson’s
Legacy
Excerpts from pages 169-170
Dickerson
reaffirmed one of the most famous decisions in American
jurisprudence. It also struck down a congressional act
that was a thinly disguised political attempt to
overrule Miranda. Section 3501 did not guarantee
the same rights that Miranda did. Although its
passage in 1968 was, at best, merely nettlesome - which
explains why it was largely ignored - its application by
a federal circuit court in 1999 made it a challenge to
both the separation of powers doctrine and stare
decisis within the judicial branch. The Fourth
Circuit’s sua sponte transfusion of life into a
dead statute gave the United States Supreme Court little
choice but to strike it down. In doing so, the Court
effectively told the Fourth Circuit that Miranda
was, for the last time, a “constitutional” decision, and
the message radiated out from Richmond to the
congressional salons across the Potomac.
However, Dickerson was not a loss for Congress
any more than it was a win for the Supreme Court. In its
ruling, the Supreme Court had revealed that the
“constitutional” Miranda was quite different from
the old prophylactic-rule Miranda, but their
opinion was obiter, or “by the way,” and
dictum, that is, tangential to the Court’s holding.
A final irony produced by Dickerson also merits
noting: The cases that justified Miranda - thirty-four
years’ worth - had relied almost entirely on the thesis
that it was merely a prophylactic rule and not a
constitutional requirement. In striking down Section
3501, the Court made the Miranda warnings
constitutional. That, of necessity, upgrades Miranda’s
progeny to constitutional status as well.
|
