8/18/2019 Dickerson Case
2/3
Arizona, and waived them before he made his statement.
Dickerson said he
was not read his "iranda warnings until after he gave his
statement. #fter his
indictment for bank robbery, Dickerson !led a motion to suppress
the
statement that he made on the ground that he had not received
"iranda
warnings before being interrogated. The government argued that
even if the
"iranda warnings were not read, the statement was voluntary and
therefore
admissible under $% &'C 'ection ()*$, which provides that +a
confession
shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given.+ The
District Court
granted Dickersons motion, !nding that he had not been read his
"iranda
rights or signed a waiver until after he made his statement, but
the court did
not address section ()*$. n reversing, the Court of #ppeals
acknowledged
that Dickerson had not received "iranda warnings, but held that
section
()*$ was satis!ed because his statement was voluntary. The court
held that+Congress enacted section ()*$ with the e-press purpose of
legislatively
overruling "iranda and restoring voluntariness as the test for
admitting
confessions in federal court.+
uestion
"ay Congress legislatively overrule "iranda v. #ri/ona and its
warnings that
govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial
interrogation0
Conclusion
Sort:
• by seniority
• by ideology
33 decision of 2 44• 7 – 2 D E C I S I O N F O R D I C K E R S O
N
M A J O R I T Y O P I N I O N B Y W I L L I A M H . R E H N Q U
I S T
'outer
n a 123 opinion delivered by Chief 4ustice 5illiam 6. 7ehnquist,
the Court held that
"iranda governs the admissibility of statements made during
custodial interrogation
