The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS LAW” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S13675 on Nov. 2, 1999.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS LAW
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment at the Justice Department's decision not to defend a law of Congress regarding voluntary confessions.
Last evening, the Justice Department responded to the petition for certiorari from the Fourth Circuit Dickerson case, which had upheld 18 U.S.C. Section 3501, a law the Congress passed in 1968 to govern voluntary confessions. The Department refused to defend the law, arguing that it is unconstitutional under Miranda v. Arizona.
This position should not be surprising. Earlier, the Clinton Justice Department had refused to defend the law in the lower Federal courts. It had prohibited a career Federal prosecutor from raising the statute to prevent Dickerson, a serial bank robber, from going free, and had actively refused to permit other prosecutors from using the statute. However, it had held out the possibility that it would defend the law before the Supreme Court. Indeed, prior to the time the Department was forced to take a position in the Dickerson case, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General had indicated to the Judiciary Committee that the Department would defend Section 3501 in appropriate cases.
The Attorney General's refusal to enforce the law puts her at odds with her predecessors. Former Attorneys General Meese, Thornburg, and Barr have informed me through letters that they did not prevent the statute from being used during their tenures, and indeed, that the statute had been advanced in some lower court cases in prior Administrations. They added that the law should be enforced today. During a hearing on this issue in the Judiciary Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee, which I chair, all the witnesses except one shared this view.
The position of the Justice Department is also contrary to the views of law enforcement groups, which believe that Miranda warnings normally should be given but that we should not permit legal technicalities to stand in the way of an otherwise voluntary confession and justified prosecution. Most recently, according to press reports, even Federal prosecutors urged Justice officials to defend this law. It was all to no avail. In my view, the Department has a duty to defend this law, just as it should defend any law that is not clearly unconstitutional. Each court that has directly considered the issue has upheld the law. Nevertheless, the Justice Department will not abide by its duty to defend the statute, and I believe it is critical that the Congress file an amicus brief or intervene in the Supreme Court defending it.
In this case, the Justice Department has deliberately chosen to side with defense attorneys over prosecutors and law enforcement. It has deliberately chosen to side with criminals over victims and their families. This is a serious error. The Department should not make arguments in the courts on behalf of criminals. This is a sad day for the Department of Justice.
____________________
