Constitutional Law

Supreme Court Says Some Voluntary Confessions May Be Inadmissible; Rules In Indian Trust Case

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that voluntary confessions obtained by federal officials may be inadmissible if not presented before a court in a timely manner. Ruling 5-4 in Corley v. U.S., the justices concluded that federal officials do not have unlimited time to present a suspect's confession to a judge. 'Federal agents would be free to question for extended periods before bringing them out in the open, and we have always known what custodial secrecy leads to,' Justice David Souter wrote for the majority. 'No one with any smattering of the history of 20th-century dictatorships needs a lecture on the subject, and we understand the need even within our own system to take care against going too far.' Citing precedent, Souter continued that custodial '‘police interrogation, by its very nature, isolates and pressures the individual,' and there is mounting empirical evidence that these pressures can induce a frighteningly high percentage of people to confess to crimes they never committed.'

In a unanimous decision, the high court concluded that the federal government did not mismanage a trust it holds on behalf of the Navajo Nation. It is the second time that the high court has ruled against the tribe in the legal battle. The dispute over royalties paid from the trust has been ongoing for more than 15 years and a federal appeals court had ruled that the federal government breached its trust duties. The Navajo Nation has maintained that federal officials persuaded it to accept lower royalty rates than it should have for coal obtained from its land. Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the laws cited by the tribe did not provide 'basis for its breach-of-trust lawsuit against' the government. 'Today we hold, once again, that the Tribe's claim for compensation fails,' Scalia wrote in United States v. Navajo Nation. 'This matter should now be regarded as closed.'

The high court announced it would not hear a case involving Navy chaplains who claim they have been discriminated against. The chaplains argued in Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Church v. Navy that only Catholic chaplains are allowed to remain on active duty long enough to get retirement benefits. A federal appeals court ruled that the chaplains do not have standing to sue.

The justices did grant certiorari in Perdue v. Kenny A., a case involving a federal judge who increased an award for attorneys, saying they performed outstanding work in the case. U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob added more than $4 million to the award attorneys won in a case that produced major changes to Georgia's foster care system. A federal appeals court refused to overturn Shoob's action and Georgia officials appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, noting that federal courts are split on whether judges can award more money to attorneys based on their performance.   

Full post as published by ACS Blog on April 06, 2009 (boomark / email).