Florida In Louette v. State (152 Fla. 495; 12 So. 2d 168 (1943)), the court, without mentioning McNabb, stated that any confession voluntarily made is admissible (12 So. 2d at 173). The court reaffirmed earlier decisions as to the admissibility of confessions obtained while in police custody and without any advisement of one's rights (ibid.), but did not explicitly pass on the admissibility of confessions obtained during illegal police custody. In Finley v. State (153 Fla. 394; 14 So. 2d 844 (1943)), dealing with the admissibility of an oral confession, the court ruled that "we are not bound by and do not elect to follow" the McNabb doctrine (14 So. 2d at 845). In rejecting the contention that certain confessions made by appellant were erroneously admitted in evidence because, inter alia, "he had not been carried before a magistrate and warned of his legal rights," the court noted in Rollins v. State (41 So. 2d 885 (1949)): "It is not amiss to point out that we have refused to apply the doctrine of the McNabb case in this State (Finley v. State (41 So. 2d at 886)). Georgia In Bryant v. State (197 Ga. 641; 30 S. E. 2d 259, 263 (1944)), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that its pre-McNabb State law on admitting confessions, which turned solely on their voluntary or involuntary character, "has not been affected" by the McNabb case, which is "not binding upon us." Idaho In State v. Behler (65 Idaho 464; 146 P. 2d 338 (1944)), the court did not dispose of McNabb as not binding on State courts, but as a doctrine which applies only when third degree methods are employed by the police (146 P. 2d at 340). In sustaining the inclusion of the confession, the court noted that "in the instant case, appellant was not given the 'third degree,' nor were any practices indulged in which even hint of third degree methods ***" (ibid.). Earlier in the opinion the court had ruled that the police had taken the defendant before the magistrate "without unnecessary delay," in compliance with section 19-515 of the code (ibid.). Since, as the court noted, the McNabb case "pointed out 'the mere fact that a confession was made while in the custody of the police does not render it inadmissible'" (ibid.), the Idaho court had no occasion to reach the real McNabb question-the effect of illegal police detention. EXHIBIT 6 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CHARLES H. SLAYMAN, Jr., Esq., Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SLAYMAN: All but one of the United States attorneys in continental United States have now submitted to us the information requested in your letters to them of February 20, 1958, as to cases involving the applicability of Mallory v. United States (354 U. S. 449). The single exception is the United States attorney for the district of Nevada, and we assume that the reason we have not heard from him is that he has had no such cases. We have condensed and compiled this information in the form of the enclosed table and are pleased to submit it to you. The United States attorney for the District of Columbia, in whose jurisdiction by far the greatest number of cases involving the admissibility of confessions has arisen, has himself tabulated the information for his district and a copy of his report is enclosed.1 As requested in your letter of February 19, 1958, I also enclose a list of reported cases in which questions regarding the admissibility of confessions were raised. This list covers the period from July 1, 1956. Sincerely, MALCOLM ANDERSON, Assistant Attorney General, 1 EDITOR'S NOTE.-The District of Columbia report is included as a part of Mr. Gasch's statement and may be found on p. 114. Comments None None Has had no case wherein Mallory was seriously urged. In U. S. v. Calvin C. Thorpe, confession was introduced in evidence but defendant pleaded guilty before trial was completed. Anticipates inability to prosecute if unable to question suspects in cases where no eyewitnesses. Suggests rule to allow holding suspect on suspicion for reasonable time in serious cases. In U. S. v. Adrian Emile Lambert (Cr. No. 14,233), defense counsel without citing Mallory decision, objected to introduction in evidence of a confesion or, admission obtained from defendant before preliminary hearing. Government argued that admission or confession was made to a detective who had defendant in custody and that, as soon as case was made against him by United States, he was taken before a United States commissioner. Has had many cases involving admissions against interest, but Mallory problem not raised. Has had 123 cases involving confessions. All of defendants who confessed were convicted, 118 on their own pleas of guilty and 5 after trial, but Mallory decision was not raised in any case. Realizes many cases will be affected. Feels remedial legislation is essential. No unusual situations with regard to admission or exclusion of confessions. Has had 2 situations where Mallory rule could have been issue, but defendants pleaded guilty before trial. In each instance, there was sufficient evidence to prove crime without recourse to defendant's statement. Anticipates difficulty because of size of district and scarcity of commissioners, and there are no "other nearby officers"; suggests rule making "voluntariness" the test for admission and that accused be taken before commissioner within period of time reasonable under circumstances. Possibility of considerable difficulty in future. Thinks rigid adherence to Mallory doctrine Thinks Mallory decision hampers investigation and expects defense to raise point in future In Horne v. U. S. ((C. A. 5) 246 F. 2d 83, cert. den. 355 U. S. 878), court held McNabb does Arkansas, western district (Fort Smith). Arkansas, eastern district (Little Rock). None None None None None None None Delaware (Wilmington). None Florida, northern district (Tallahassee). None Comments None In U. S. v. Culverhouse et al. (Cr. No. 7425), while court was critical of officers for not ar- In U. S. v. Holbrook, prosecution for 1st-degree murder, a confession made subsequent to All Federal investigative agencies are well informed with reference to principles of McNabb No occasion to offer confession taken after arrest and prior to arraignment but has processed Has had numerous cases wherein defendants gave statements admitting guilt but such None Iowa, northern district (Sioux City). None None None Confessions admitted in C. 2.9. ALE 26,629). Admissions that were not confessions in that they denied certain essential elements of crime and to that extent were exculpatory were admitted in U. S. v. C. G. Flore (No. 26,128) and U. S. v. Odelle Robertson and Mal Miller (No. 26,275). (When any doubt exists as to whether an admission might be considered a confession, it is treated as such.) No cases in which an alleged confession was excluded since June 1957. In U. S. v. Lawrence Edward Brittingham, Jr. (Cr. 24,159) (a nonjury case), the court de- In U. S. v. Chester Dillon Young (Cr. 24,065), a jury case, the court raised the question as It was shown that the statement was obtained after arrest and it was admitted. In a pending case a pretrial motion to suppress a statement made to a Government agent United States attorney recalls no case tried in his district within the past 4 or 5 years in Able so far to work up cases without relying on confessions. Only 1 case, now on appeal, involving admissibility of confession and that by coconspira- Thinks it possible Mallory decision will hinder both investigation and prosecution. Recom- Only 2 cases tried involving confessions or admissions against interest and they were ob- No records maintained which would indicate cases in which confessions were admitted or Confessions admitted in evidence in about 50 percent of cases tried. Confession in about Michigan, eastern district (Detroit).. None None Michigan, western district (Grand Rapids). None None None None None Minnesota (St. Paul). Mississippi northern district (Oxford).. None None None Mississippi, southern district (Jackson). None 1 1 No report. Confessions or admissions are obtained in at least 80 percent of cases, and of those that have gone to trial all have been admitted. In U. S. v. Frank Coppola (bank robbery) confession admitted over defense counsel's objec- Recalls no case in which Mallory rule was raised, although there may have been instances Has had a few cases in which pleas of guilty were entered and agents recited confessions States lawyers in his district are not yet sufficiently familiar with Mallory case to cause trouble but he expects it. In U. S. v. Duhmel et al., defendants moved before trial to suppress a handwriting sample and a written consent to search their apartment on the ground that they were obtained from them during a period of illegal detention. No confession was involved. Court held there was no unreasonable delay in arraignment and denied the motion. Defendants then pleaded guilty. No cases in which Mallory issue raised because of strict adherence to the procedural require- In 2 cases confessions made by defendants while in State custody were admitted without objection. States effect of Mallory rule must be considered in large majority of criminal cases as defendant is interviewed at earliest possible moment after being taken into cus |