Dickerson v. United States
| Dickerson v. United States | |
|---|---|
| Argued April 19, 2000 Decided June 26, 2000 | |
| Full case name | Charles Thomas Dickerson, Petitioner v. United States |
| Citations | 530 U.S. 428 (more) 120 S. Ct. 2326; 147 L. Ed. 2d 405; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 4305 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Dickerson, 971 F. Supp. 1023 (E.D. Va. 1997); reversed, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999). |
| Holding | |
| The mandate of Miranda v. Arizona that a criminal suspect be advised of certain constitutional rights governs the admissibility at trial of the suspect's statements, not the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 that such statements simply be voluntarily given. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V; 18 U.S.C. § 3501 | |
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
Dickerson is regarded as a significant example of a rare departure by the Court from the principle of party presentation. The Court noted that neither party in the case advocated on behalf of the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3501, the specific statute at issue in the case. Accordingly, it invited Paul Cassell, a former law clerk to Antonin Scalia and Warren E. Burger, to argue that perspective. Cassell was then a professor at the University of Utah law school; he was later appointed to, and subsequently resigned from, a federal district court judgeship in that state.