defendant. A. S. Trebach. Rutgers Law Review. Spring 1957. Volume 11, page 487. Washington University Temple Law Quarterly. "Tainted testimony" as basis for award of new trial. Law Quarterly. Volume 1957, page 170. April 1957. Criminal procedure-Pretrial discovery of confession. Volume 30, page 203. Winter 1957. Suppression of nonconfessional evidence under rule 5 (a) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Yale Law Journal. Volume 66, page 270. December 1956. JULY 1957 TO JANUARY 1958 Federal courts' control of illegal conduct of State officers who aid in enforcement of Federal law. Minnesota Law Review. Volume 42, page 121. November 1957. Article 31, UCMJ—A guide for investigators. JAG Journal. Volume 1957, page 11. July; August 3, 1957. Confessions in criminal cases. Trial Lawyer's Guide. Volume 1, page 107. February 1957. Constitutional laws-Coerced confessions-Length of confinement as a test. Western Reserve Law Review. Volume 8, page 538. September 1957. Constitutional law-Due process and involuntary confessions. Boston University Law Review. Volume 37, page 374. Summer 1957. Constitutional law-Psychological coercion held to void confessions obtained by long questioning of unrepresented mental defective. Maryland Law Review. Volume 17, page 274. Summer 1957. Criminal law-Evidence-Confessions-Voluntary character in general. Kansas Law Review. Volume 6, page 90. October 1957. Criminal law-Implicating confession of coconspirator permitted at joint trial with restricting instructions. University of Illnois Law Forum. Volume 1957, page 129. Spring 1957. Delay between arrest and arraignment for any purpose other than routine police administrative procedure is a violation of rule 5 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and confessions obtained during such delay will be excluded from evidence. Georgetown Law Journal. Volume 46, page 185. Fall 1957. Evidence-Admissibility of confessions as to codefendants. Missouri Law Review. Volume 22, page 317. June 1957. Evidence Admissions against interest-Implicating confession of one coconspirator in a joint trial. North Dakota Law Review. Volume 33, page 317. July 1957. Evidence Confession obtained during illegal detention inadmissible in federal courts. Georgia Bar Journal. Volume 20, page 127. August 1957. Evidence Confession obtained during prearraignment detention-Police interrogation as affecting legality of delay. George Washington Law Review. Volume 26, page 102. October 1957. Evidence Confessions-Admission of codefendant's confession in criminal proceedings. Cornell Law Quarterly. Volume 43, page 128. Fall 1957. Evidence Confessions-The use of a confession secured by improper police methods is a denial of due process under the 14th amendment. University of Pittsburgh Law Review. Volume 18, page 823. Summer 1957. Evidence Constitutional law-Effect of delay in arraignment on admissibility of confession. Texas Law Review. Volume 35, page 728. May 1957. Leyra case. Criminal Law Review. Volume 4, page 83. Spring 1957. McNabb rule: Upshaw through Mallory. Virginia Law Review. Volume 43, page 915. October 1957. Restrictions in the law of interrogation and confessions. Northwestern University Law Review. Volume 52, page 77. March-April 1957. Safeguards in the law of interrogation and confessions. Northwestern University Law Review. Volume 52, page 86. March-April 1957. FEBRUARY 1958 Right of an accused to obtain pretrial inspection of his confession. Journal of Criminal Law. Criminology and Science. Volume 48, page 305. SeptemberOctober 1957. Utah court holds evidence independent of extrajudicial confession insufficient to establish corpus delicti. Utah Law Review. Volume 5, page 549. Fall 1957. To: Charles H. Slayman, Jr., chief counsel, Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. From: Sue McCandless, research assistant. Subject: Law review and periodical bibliography on confessions and police detention. THE BIBLIOGRAPHY 1940 THROUGH 1943 1. Admissibility of Evidence Illegally Obtained, Georgia Bar Review, 4: 85-8. May 1942. 2. McNabb v. United States, Harvard Law Review, 56: 1008-10. May 1943. 1944 THROUGH 1946 1. Confessions-Admissibility in the Federal courts of confessions obtained prior to preliminary hearings-McNabb. Texas Law Review, 22: 473-81. June 1944. (a) Concerns McNabb case (review of it). (b) What ruling means. (c) People will find a way of getting around it. 2. Confessions-Admission of confession obtained after 36 hours of continuous questioning by state officers held deprivation of due process. (Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 64 Sup. Ct. 921.) Harvard Law Review, 57: 919-21. July 1944. (a) Merely a review of the case. 3. Note on Ashcraft v. Tennessee, Marquette Law Review, 28: 125-7. Summer 1944. 4. Note on Ashcraft v. Tennessee, Minnesota Law Review, 28: 497-8. June 1944. 5. Confessions--Extrajudicial-Admissibility of extrajudicial confessions affected by illegal delay in arraignment-McNabb, Minnesota Law Review, 28: 73-6. December 1943. 6. Note on McNabb case, Tennessee Law Review, 18: 212-214. February 1944. 7. Confessions made while in police custody-Limitation on rule of McNabb case. (U. S. v. Mitchell, 64 Sup. Ct. 896.) Southern California Law Review, 18: 63-7. September 1944. 8. Admissibility of illegally obtained confessions in Federal courts-The McNabb doctrine, Wisconsin Law Review, 1945: 105-11. January 1945. 9. Confessions-Illegal custody-Protracted questioning-McNabb, Connecticut Bar Journal, 18: 89-96. July 1944. (a) A comment: 1. Review of McNabb and Ashcraft cases, mostly concerning their capture and detention. 10. Illegal detention and the admissibility of confessions, McNabb and Anderson cases, Yale Law Journal, 53: 758-772. September 1944. (a) Discusses several cases: McNabb, Anderson, Mitchell. (b) There is a need for legislation which will grant police reasonable leeway in arraignment and early interrogation of suspects without unduly invading individual rights. 1946 THROUGH 1949 1. Admissibility of confession obtained before arraignment-Federal rule, Rocky Mountain Law Review, 21: 98–105. December 1948. 2. Admissibility of confessions made during detention. (Upshaw v. United States, 69 Sup. Ct. 170.) Dickinson Law Review, 53: 206-209. March 1949. 3. Admissibility of confessions made during detention. Miami Law Quarterly, 3: 307-309. February 1949. 4. Confession of defendant while in illegal custody held admissible, if confession is voluntary. (Boone v. United States, 164 F (2d) 102.) Georgetown Law Journal, 36: 463–466. March 1948. 5. Evidence in Federal courts-Confessions-Delay in arraignment. shaw.) Boston University Law Review, 29: 250-260. Law Review, 2: 472-475. April 1949. (Up April 1949. Vanderbilt 6. Illegal detention-Admissibility of confession, New York University Law Quarterly Review, 24: 437-439. April 1949. 7. Illegal detention-Admissibility of confession, Notre Dame Law Review, 24: 432-433. Spring 1949. 8. Illegal detention-Admissibility of confession, Oregon Law Review, 28: 282-285. April 1949. 9. Illegal detention-Admissibility of confession, Syracuse Law Review, 1: 158-160. Spring 1949. 10. Illegal detention alone held insufficient to invalidate a confession (Upshaw), Virginia Law Review, 34: 839-841. October 1948. 11. Validity of confessions obtained while accused is in illegal custody, Intramural Law Review, 3: 53-61. October 1947. (a) Been declared in New York that evidence illegally obtained, or unlawfully seized, is admissible. (b) Follows that voluntary confessions even if illegally obtained are admissible. (c) Courts define term "Unnecessary delay" (in arraignment) at the hour when the magistrate would ordinarily be at his office or court and in the meanwhile the defendant is entitled to give bail. (d) Would appear that today the Supreme Court may independently weigh the evidence of confessions obtained during illegal detention. 1949 TO 1952 1. Preliminary examination and the third degree, Baylor Law Review, 2: 131-158. Winter 1952. (a) Preliminary hearing theory seems ideally suited to protect rights, but is mostly perfunctory and neither side develops full strength of case. (b) Evils of third degree: 1. Involves danger of false confession. 2. Impairs police efficiency. 3. Impairs efficiency of criminal justice in courts. 4. Brutalizes the police, hardens the prisoner. (c) Remedies for the third degree: 1. Statutory remedies. 2. Public opinion. 2. Admissibility of a confession in Mississippi, Mississippi Law Journal, 21: 131-158. Winter 1952. 3. Admissibility of a confession made during illegal detention, Southern California Law Review, 23: 63-71. December 1949. 4. Admissibility of confessions as affected by illegal delay in taking arrested persons before committing magistrates, Rutgers Law Review, 4: 669-686. June 1950. 5. Admissibility of confessions-Effect of illegal detention-Federal rule (Upshaw case), Brooklyn Law Review, 15: 295–299. April 1949. Notes Admissibility of confessions-Effect of illegal detention : 6. Georgetown Law Journal, 37: 624–627. May 1949. 7. J. B. A., Kansas, 17: 477-479. May 1949. 8. Michigan Law Review, 47: 1016-1017. May 1949. 9. North Carolina Law Review, 27: 552-558. June 1949. 10. Ohio State Law Journal, 10: 260-262. Spring 1949. 11. Southwestern Law Journal, 3: 452-457. 12. Texas Law Review, 28: 114-116. November 1949. 13. Tulsa Law Review, 23: 577-580. June 1949. 14. University of Detroit Law Journal, 12: 173-174. May 1949. 15. Wyoming Law Journal, 3: 237–240. Summer 1949. 16. Oklahoma Law Review, 2: 337-351. (a) History of McNabb rule: August 1949. 1. Interpretations of McNabb rule by the lower Federal courts have been incinsistent and confused. (b) Purpose of the McNabb rule: 1. To force a compliance with the arraignment statutes. 2. It was not intended as a rule by which the reliability of evidence may be made more certain. (c) Criticism of McNabb rule: 1. Will not stop police brutality. 2. Deprives law officials of one of their most important sources of evidence especially when gangs and conspiracies are involved. (d) Alternative means of achieving McNabb rule objective: 1. Waivers. 17. Confessions obtained prior to commitment what constitutes unreasonable delay (Garner v. United States, 174 F. (2d 499)), Michigan Law Review, 48: 1028-1030. May 1950. 18. Confessions-Unreasonable delay in arraignment affecting admissibility of confessions (Moore v. State (Miss.) 41 So. (2d) 368), Mississippi Law Journal, 21: 416-418. May 1950. 19. Effect of delay between arrest without warrant and preliminary hearing upon admissibility of ad interim confessions, University of Florida Law Review, 2: 330–345. Fall 1949. (a) Reviews different cases-Upshaw, Anderson, Mitchell, McNabb in connection with Rule 5a. (b) What is meant by "unnecessary delay" must depend upon the facts of each case. 20. Illegal delays and confessions in State and Federal courts a "civilized standard," Catholic University Law Review, 1:19. May 1950. (a) Discusses state rules similar to rule 5 (a). (b) None have employed the "civilized standard" pronounced in McNabb case. (c) "State rule; illegal detention per se will not serve as a basis for excluding confession." (d) "State courts have not been reversed in their basic contention that the confessions taken during an illegal period are admissible unless they can be shown to have been coerced." 1952 THROUGH 1957 1. Admissibility of confession-Delay in arraignment (U. S. v. Leviton, 193 F (2d) 848), Ohio State Law Journal, 13: 535–538. Autumn 1952. 2. Texas Law Review, 31: 212-215. December 1952. 3. Admissibility of confessions made after arrest (Jones v. State (Teras), 264 SW (2d) 106), Baylor Law Review, 6: 378-385. Spring 1954. 4. Admissibility of confessions secured prior to arraignment, Intra Law Review (American University), 3:51-63. May 1954. 1956 THROUGH 1957 1. Under the McNabb rule a confession can be excluded from evidence because of an illegal detention only if shown to be the product of that illegal detention (Rettig v. United States, 239 F. 2d 916), Georgetown Law Journal, 45:504. Spring 1957. 2. Confession obtained during illegal detention (Rogers v. Supreme Court (Calif.) 291 P 2d 929), UCLA Law Review, 4: 1936. December 1956. (a) Supreme Court has held that states are not required by due process to adopt McNabb rule. (b) California has adopted Weeks rule. 3. Admissibility of confession-Effect of illegal detention (Mallory), SW Law Journal, 11:240. Spring 1957. JANUARY 1958 1. Evidence-Confession obtained during illegal detention inadmissible in Federal courts (Mallory v. United States, 77 Sup. Ct. 1356), Georgia Bar Journal, 20: 127. August 1957. 2. Evidence-Confessions-The use of a confession secured by improper police methods is a denial of due process under the 14th amendment (Fikes v. Alabama, 77 Sup. Ct. 281), University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 18: 823. Summer 1957. 3. Evidence-Constitutional law-Effect of delay in arraignment in admissi bility of confessions, Texas Law Review, 35: 728. May 1957. 4. McNabb rules: Upshaw through Mallory, Virginia Law Review, 43:915. October 1952. PERIODICAL LITERATURE 1. Old abuse is ended; illegal secret detention and inquisition, Nation, 156: 402-403. March 20, 1943. 2. Protection from police abuse, New Republic, 110: 743-744. June 5, 1944. 3. Pan of Bones-Lyons case, forced murder confession in Oklahoma, Nation, 158: 444-446. April 15, 1944. 4. Self incrimination, New Republic, 124: 6. March 12, 1951. 5. Fifth Amendment and Forced Confessions, Christian Century, 71: 945-947. August 11, 1954. EXHIBIT 35 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, March 17, 1958. Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, United States Senate. MY DEAR CHAIRMAN: Enclosed for your information is the letter I received from Mrs. Edward B. Morris, secretary of the Federation of Citizens Association of the District of Columbia, and enclosures. With kindest regards, I am, Sincerely, WILLIAM LANGER. FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS March 11, 1958. Senator WILLIAM LANGER, Chairman, Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR LANGER: I noticed in tonight's papers that your subcommittee is holding hearings relative to legislation proposed because of the so-called Mallory decision of the Supreme Court. I should like to call to the attention of your committee the enclosed resolution which was approved by the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia, representing 55 member associations. I am enclosing also, for your information, a copy of the directory of the federation. It is the federation's earnest hope that the Congress will give its views on this subject serious consideration. Very sincerely yours, MABEL E. MORRIS Mrs. Edward B. Morris, Secretary P. S.-We should appreciate having the resolution made a part of the record of hearing on the subject. If you should desire to question a representative of the federation, please notify Mr. James A. Willey, National 8-2477. He is legislative chairman. RESOLUTION OF FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARCH 6, 1958 Whereas the recent wave of violent crimes is alarming and abhorrent to all law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia and fosters the desire on the part of all such citizens to quickly bring to justice the perpetrators of such crimes; and Whereas the United States Supreme Court has by its decision in the Mallory case made it virtually impossible to convict many self-confessed criminals and has seriously hampered the efforts of law-enforcement officials in the detection and prevention of crime; and Whereas it is the earnest and sincere desire of all those who are steeped in the American way of life, to see every citizen accorded his full constitutional rights at all times: Now, therefore, be it |