THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

The Supreme Court Rethinks Rights

One of the key targets of critics of the Supreme Court was the rights granted to accused criminals. President Nixon looked to eliminate or reduce those rights in appointing Warren Burger as chief justice to replace Earl Warren. However, the Burger Court did not revoke the rights granted by the Warren Court. Nor did it eliminate the exclusionary rule, which prohibited illegally obtained evidence from being used in trying the accused. The Court's changes were much more limited. For example, the Court decided that even if an accused person had not been read his Miranda rights, a statement he made could be used to counter his in-court testimony. That was a retreat from the principle that only if one's rights had been read to him could the evidence be used in courts. But the Court had not completely overturned the requirement that the police read an accused person his or her rights. The votes in these cases were divided, and changes in the law moved slowly.

Continuity

Sometimes the different sides in the Court agreed on an extension of the rights of the accused. For example, the Court decided unanimously in 1972 in Argersinger v. Hamlin that anyone accused of a crime for which he could be put in prison was entitled to an attorney. That decision was based on the Warren Court's decision in 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright. It increased the number of accused criminals who were entitled to have the government provide them with an attorney.

Wiretapping

The Supreme Court also had to consider the constitutionality of wiretaps and the requirement of a warrant before a search. In 1972 the Nixon administration argued that when it claimed national security it did not need to get a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled against the administration, concerned that officials would always claim national security. But the Court decided that search warrants were not always required. For example, pen registers, which record the phone numbers dialed from a phone, did not require a warrant. In addressing new technology the Court in some circumstances gave extended authority to the police. In the other areas of criminal procedure, however, the Court moved only slightly away from the innovations of the Warren Court.