Voluntary confession now easier to admit in Virginia

By CHERYL FRANKENFIELD
Collegian Staff Writer

The Supreme Court's 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona guaranteed suspects would be informed by police of their rights to remain silent, have a lawyer present for questioning and have a court-appointed lawyer.

But last week, a 1968 law was used in a Richmond, Va., federal appeals court to make it easier for voluntary confessions to be received without the reading of Miranda warnings and for that information to be admissible in court.

The law, a provision of a 1968 crime control law, states confessions are admissible if given voluntarily regardless of a warning, said Thomas Place, professor of law at Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University. The decision applies to federal prosecutions in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina only, he said.

The biggest concern about this issue is it opens doors for law enforcement officers to take advantage of people who don't know their rights, said Julian Catchen, co-coordinator of the Penn State chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Miranda rights have been working for more than 30 years and Catchen believes they are necessary.

The Miranda case was decided when Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested for rape and kidnapping, was questioned by police without being given a warning about his rights or without the presence of a lawyer. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda, saying his confession was inadmissible.

The recent decision raises some basic issues whether the Miranda case was about constitutional rights, Place said. It has not been determined whether the Miranda ruling should be included under the self-incrimination text in the Constitution.

"For 33 years, police have had no problem reading these rights as part of their routine in enforcing America's laws. Now a court, without proper briefing or argument, has cast us adrift with no rules to guide the police or protect citizens," said Larry Pozner, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, in a Scripps Howard press release.

Miranda warnings are read only if a suspect is answering incriminating questions, Jack Quick, Penn State Police Services officer, said.

"A lot of people don't know they have specific rights in this country," Quick said. "All police officers I know are very, very conscious of Miranda."

Quick said if Miranda rights were not read or not read completely, a confession would not be admissible in court.

But Place said a defendant won't walk out of the courthouse because of Miranda technicalities. The prosecution would instead be forced to look at other evidence.

Place said despite the fear complications caused by Miranda warnings could result in guilty persons escaping justice, Place said, "People do not go free."