
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, April 22, 1993                   TAG: 9304220217
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A6   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: The Washington Post
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

COURT BACKS MIRANDA RIGHTS, LIMITS INMATES' FEDERAL APPEALS

In separate 5-4 decisions Wednesday, the Supreme Court refused to, in effect, limit protections stemming from the "Miranda warning" but made it harder for state prisoners to challenge convictions in federal court.

A majority rejected arguments from the Justice Department and local prosecutors that would have made it difficult for state prisoners to appeal to a federal court on claims that their confessions were coerced.

The case involved a Michigan man who implicated himself in a homicide after a police sergeant threatened to lock him up and before he was read the Miranda warning - which tells suspects of the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer, and that anything they say can be used against them in court.

Justice David Souter agreed that a Miranda claim merits federal court review.

Justices Harry Blackmun, Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens and Byron White joined in Souter's opinion in the case, Withrow vs. Williams.

But, in a separate case, a different five-justice majority ruled to limit when federal courts may throw out the state conviction of a defendant who claims his or her constitutional rights were violated at trial.

Only if the violation substantially affected the jury's verdict is the conviction to be overturned, according to the justices' ruling.

A Wisconsin prisoner claimed that his refusal to talk after he had been read his Miranda rights was used against him at trial.

At issue was how a federal court should assess constitutional violations at trial, in this case the prosecutor's references to the suspect's silence.

The court rejected a standard that would have allowed federal court review of a state case unless the asserted trial error was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."

That is a far tougher standard for prosecutors to meet, and necessarily would have permitted more federal court review.

This decision, Brecht vs. Abrahamson, was written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Voting with Rehnquist were Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas and Stevens.

by CNB