[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27798-27799]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       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

[[Page 27799]]

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.

                          ____________________