« ForrigeFortsett »
Let us assume that they are the professional criminals that you have referred to in your statement.
They immediately demand to be arraigned without any interrogation of any kind. You refuse to arraign them.
Half an hour later, they again demand to be arraigned. They consistently refuse to sign a voluntary statement of any sort and refuse to cooperate in any way.
You have an arraigning officer available. In your opinion, under the decision, what would the police officer be able to do under those circumstances?
Mr. MURRAY. In the first place, I don't think he would have too much to show probable cause and to have him held before arraignment.
Mr. CRAMER. That is an important point. In other words, you just cannot arraign someone on suspicion.
Mr. MURRAY. To take someone and get the commissioner in because he has committed a crime you have got to have something to hang your hat on.
Mr. CRAMER. You have got to have something to show a prima facie case. Mr. MURRAY. That is right.
Mr. CRAMER. And the mere fact that you had three occurrences would not rule it out immediately?
Mr. MURRAY. I don't think it would hold anybody.
Mr. CRAMER. And that is one of your examples of why you think the decision benefits the professional criminal?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. MURRAY. I think that the public doesn't know that the professional criminals study the court decisions as closely as attorneys study them.
Mr. WILLIS. In other words, this Mallory case is well known in the fraternity right now?
Mr. MURRAY. Oh, yes. It is being watched very closely and I have heard professional criminals over the years that would tell you about court decisions and sentences given by certain judges and who is tough and who is lenient. They follow the court decisions very closely.
Mr. CRAMER. What effect do you think this decision would have under your interpretation of it, with regard to evidence other than statements of the subject, such as physical evidence and what have you, the police had acquired prior to the confession or that they acquired subsequent to the confession?
Mr. MURRAY. I don't believe it would rule out any physical evidence that we had. I think it would if after we had held him any length of time and got physical evidence to corroborate a confession; in fact, even now they throw the whole thing out, but I don't think that it would affect physical evidence under that decision.
Mr. CRAMER. If, after an extended period of time, the subject made any statement, based upon which you were given a lead and acquired evidence, would it not put that evidence in jeopardy?
Mr. MURRAY. I think it would rule that evidence out.
Mr. MURRAY. If we picked up a man in a murder case and we went ahead and got a confession from him and he told us that he had thrown a gun in the river and we went and recovered the gun. I think that would possibly be thrown out, along with the confession.
Mr. WILLIS. Even though the gun might, under scientific examination, bear proof of-ballistic proof against the suspect?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. CRAMER. I think the record should be clear, although you allude to it in your statement, as to what jurisdiction the police have to continue their investigation after a suspect has been arraigned ?
Mr. MURRAY. None. Immediately upon arraignment, if the commissioner or the judge holds a subject, either on bond or without bond, he is immediately turned over to the United States marshal and the police have no further custody. He cannot be remanded like in some States. A prisoner can be arraigned and the judge can remand him to the police for further investigation of the case.
Mr. CRAMER. In other words, this investigation which results in arraignment is cut off at the time of arraignment?
Mr. MURRAY. As far as any cooperation from the defendant is concerned; it ends there.
Mr. CRAMER. Now, this one other question: In your long experience you made the statement that you knew of no case in which the judge, himself, ruled out evidence based upon coercion or these other grounds without referring it to the jury which, of course, means that it is not prima facie so far as the Court is concerned.
Mr. MURRAY. It is not prima facie involuntary.
Mr. CRAMER. It seems to me to be a pretty clear indication of the fact that the police methods being used at least in this area are not of the type that the Supreme Court seemed to be apprehensive about in citing the brutality on the part of the police officers.
Mr. MURRAY. No; we do not condone any practice of mistreatment or abuse of prisoners, and I am satisfied that we have none in our Department.
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you.
Mr. MOORE. Chief Murray, in your statement I have underlined one word which you have used a considerable number of times in connection, or combination, or conjunction with the question of delay. That is the word “reasonable."
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. MOORE. I would say you have used it a half a dozen times or more today in your statement, and I think you have added to it orally.
You were here when a member of this committee had questioned a former witness before the committee with respect to the use of the word "reasonable.”
All that you are asking in any instance is a reasonable time for proper interrogation by the investigating officers; is that correct?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. MOORE. So that I may get my thinking straight as to the manner in which you normally proceed under a criminal case, do you pick up individuals as suspects in a case first? Or, normally, is a complaint made to your Department that such an act has been committed and that under oath that individual says that Joe Smith committed the act?
Mr. MURRAY. We don't have too many cases of that kind. Most of our cases in the major criminal cases are where we get a report that a person has been held up and robbed, a home has been broken into, a business place has been broken into or, like in this Mallory case, where this woman had been raped.
We entered the case when she called the police and our investigation had to start then.
Mr. MOORE. That is the point I want to make.
In the confession, you use the term that "you are being held in connection with the complaint of Mrs. Blank.”
Under the type of law that I am familiar with, the term "complaint" is a written complaint to the law-enforcement officers.
You are just talking about somebody calling you up on the telephone and saying this happened to me.
Mr. MURRAY. There were no written complaints here. The police officers responded on the call and, of course, made a report, her report, of what had happened. And the investigation of the cast started.
Mr. MOORE. Well, now, another question comes to my mind that in eliciting this confession from Mallory, I notice the Supreme Court indicates that in the examination of him prior to obtaining this confession, he was advised that his brother had testified that he had committed this crime.
Mr. MURRAY. Brother or nephew.
Mr. MOORE. That his brother said he was the assailant. I am reading from the Mallory case.
At least, four officers questioned him and in the presence of these officers they told him that his brother had said he was the assailant.
Mr. MURRAY. I would have to let Deputy Scott-I am not familiar with the particular question. He could tell you. I believe he was told that the nephew stated that he had committed the crime, or he thought he had committed the crime. It was my impression that the nephew said that he thought Mallory had committed the crime.
Now, of course, one of the things that led to Mallory was this light-colored felt hat that the assailant was wearing.
Of course, he had a handkerchief over his face.
When the nephews learned that the man the police were looking for was wearing a light felt hat, it was then that it centered on Mallory because he had a light-colored felt hat.
For the committee's benefit, I would like to mention about the polygraph or lie detector.
Mr. WILLIS. Yes; I would like that.
Mr. MURRAY. It seems to be the impression of some of the public and some of the stories that we hear that the police can put a subject in and sit him down in a chair and clamp this apparatus on him and give him a lie detector test whether they want it or not. But, that is not true.
The subject must not only be willing to take it, but he must cooperate in the test because if he doesn't, the test is no good. He must be willing to take it and he must be willing to cooperate with the person giving the test.
Mr. Willis. You mean for the device to work scientifically, he must not struggle and so on?
Mr. MURRAY. It would be worthless. It would prove nothing either way, and I might say that the polygraph machine has cleared many more people, suspects; in a crime, than it has implicated guilty people.
Mr. MOORE. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MOORE. This other point I want to talk to you about, Chief Murray, is on page 3. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer, alluded to this. You had indicated that after arraignment the subject is held and taken into custody of the United States marshal and the police lose custody immediately.
But that does not preclude the Police Department from continuing their investigation of the case in any way?
Mr. MURRAY. Oh, no.
Mr. MURRAY. Well, not unless he wants to receive them in the jail. We can. not go over there and talk to him if he doesn't want us to or if his attorney advises him not to.
Mr. MOORE. Would it not be true, also, with respect to any interrogation prior to the arraignment ?
Mr. MURRAY. It would be true if his attorney advised him not to talk to us.
Mr. MOORE. Are you saying that a great number of your voluntary confessions, and we assume that they are all voluntary, and confessions obtained prior to arraignment and very few, if any, of your cases have been cracked by afterarraignment confessions?
Mr. MURRAY. I would say that was true; yes, sir.
Mr. MOORE. For it to be true, when you make that statement, that is the reason the Mallory case is of such great importance?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. MOORE. For you to state otherwise, the Mallory decision would not affect it?
Mr. MURRAY. I would like to state again I think that if the Mallory decision stands, it will result in complete breakdown in law enforcement in the District of Columbia.
I sincerely believe that most of your serious crimes will go unsolved and unpunished.
Mr. MOORE. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CRAMER. What effect do you think the decision will have on the attitude of police officers with respect to even voluntary confessions? Will they be hesitant even to accept voluntary confessions?
Mr. MURRAY. I think the police officers are now so confused, on some of the other decisions—the Mallory and other decisions--that they do not know which way to turn.
This Mallory decision is not the only one that has restricted the police. We have many, many other cases of heinous crimes where they have turned out for some technical reason after conviction by the lower court.
I think I would like to change that-I am sure that we have a very fine group of district court judges who are well able to protect and safeguard the rights of any defendant and I would rest my case with those judges.
Most of them are experienced in the law and have long years of experience on the bench and do safeguard the rights of anybody that appears as a de fendant in their court.
Mr. CRAMER. Your statement about a complete breakdown of law, is that based upon the fact that professional criminals will know how to take advantage of it and demand immediate arraignment as one example?
Mr. MURRAY. That is right.
Mr. CRAMER. Then, you weed out the innocent people and within a period of time you have your probable cause case for arraignment and that is the sort of thing that will cause the breakdown.
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir. I would say that an overwhelming majority of these major crime cases, and maybe as much as 90 percent, are solved after the subject has been brought in and questioned.
There are not too many of your major criminal cases where an on-the-spot arrest is made or where the victim knows or can identify or does identify, and even under those circumstances, if we know who a man is who has committed a crime, we dare not question him under this decision. We cannot find out from him whether he is innocent or guilty.
Mr. CRAMER. I am interested in this 90-percent figure. Ninety percent of your cases, you are stating as an estimate, require some degree of investigation before you can book them or have them arraigned?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir; and I would like Deputy Scott to talk about that when he testifies. I haven't discussed that particular figure with him, but I would like to get his opinion on that, too.
Mr. CRAMER. Of that 90 percent, which, of course, is a tremendous percentage, what portion of that to your knowledge might be affected by a flat 7162-hour rule, if that were adopted ?
Mr. MURRAY. Just like in that statement I mentioned, 10 hours.
We have been restricted by court decisions for some time, and every police official and police officer is very much aware that he must get the prisoner before a United States commissioner or the court at the earliest possible moment; but there is no use taking him in until you have a prima facie case. If you have a man in custody, you know he has committed a crime, and until you have something you can lay before
Mr. CRAMER. I appreciate that.
Mr. MURRAY. I would say under the circumstances and the system we have been working under for the past few years that none of them are held beyond 1 day. In other words, they are taken to the station. If a man is arrested early this morning, we take him to a commissioner or the court some time during the day.
We are not going to take the risk of holding him over until tomorrow because then we might lose the case.
Mr. CRAMER. What percentage of this 90 percent of the cases do you think, under the rule laid down in the Mallory case, would be jeopardized in the procedure you use of the 90 percent requiring some type of investigation?
Mr. MURRAY. I would not say except the vast majority of the cases that 90 percent would require as much time.
Mr. CRAMER. Would require what?
Mr. FOLEY. Chief Murray, I am inclined to agree with you, based on my prosecuting experience, that 90 percent is a fair figure.
You also have the problem of procuring sufficient evidence upon which to conduct a trial.
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. FOLEY. Even that 10 percent above the 90 percent may still need interrogation?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir,
Mr. FOLEY. Because, even if he gives you a full confession, you would need to corroborate that confession.
Mr. MURRAY. I think confession alone would not go too far in court. You have got to have corroboration.
Mr. FOLEY. Such as recovery of property and possible admission to third parties, and the like.
Mr. MURRAY. Yes.
Mr. FOLEY. So that, it is absolutely necessary in every case under proper police procedure to interrogate?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. WHITENER. Chief, in looking at this testimony, I note many of the statements you made at that time were very prophetic. Would you say the subsequent events have borne out your prediction at that
Chief MURRAY. Unhappily, Mr. Chairman, it has been. There has been even more somewhat restrictive decisions along the line of the Mallory decision since I retired from office, as the Miranda decision, the Escobedo decision, and others that I read about in the papers. I have tried not to project myself into police department matters, as you well know, but if I can be of any help to a committee of the Congress I am happy to do it.
I think the situation has got to the point where the predatory criminal is given more consideration than innocent victims of crime and the law-abiding public.
When I made that statement in 1957, as I mentioned, it was 24 days after the Mallory decision was handed down. I did predict that it would just about, in my opinion, tear down law enforcement in the District of Columbia. And I think it turned out that way.
I was a member of the Metropolitan Police Department for 34 years and 3 months. I was Chief of Police for 13 years. I worked in nearly every branch, including scout cars, on foot, and up through the rangs in the uniform force, and also I had about 15 or 16 years in plainclothes, assigned to homicide squad, robbery squad, Assistant Chief of Detectives, and later Chief of Detectives before I was made Chief of Police.
As I said, I think the predatory criminal—I wouldn't say he is encouraged, but I think he has not been discouraged in his operation, and I think the upswing in crime here and around the country bears out that point.
Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Sisk.
Mr. Sisk. I simply want to state, Mr. Chairman, that we are very happy to see Chief Murray here today. I well remember his long and very able service to the District of Columbia and I certainly want to commend him for his comments, as many of us were concerned. We are very happy to see you here. You are looking in good health.
Chief MURRAY. Thank you.
Mr. ADAMS. Chief Murray, I wanted to ask, as to the Mallory rule, this basically deals with police questions; is that correct? While in custody.
Chief MURRAY. Yes.
Mr. ADAMS. Do you think that such things as the fantastic overload we have in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions at the present time is something that is causing a drop of convictions and a feeding back of people back into the District that have criminal records?
Chief MURRAY. I would say the workload on the detective
Mr. Adams. I am talking about the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions.
Chief MURRAY. I wouldn't be able to comment on that.
Mr. Adams. What do you think of the deterioration in the physical facilities in the Police Department, such as the precinct housing, and so on. Do you think that this and the inadequate equipment is having an effect on the ability to cope with the crime situation?
Chief MURRAY. I think any police official would be in agreement that more equipment and more men would always be a help. As to the consolidation of the precincts, that was put into effect here in