Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

No cases in which Mallory issue raised because of strict adherence to the procedural requirements of rule 5 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. None There have been numerous pleas of guilty that involved confessions.

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

[graphic]

North Carolina, eastern district (Raleigh).

North Carolina, middle district (Greensboro).

South Carolina, western district (Greenville).

2 or 3 attempts since Mallory to exclude confessions but facts so different court admitted them. Refrained from offering confessions in 3 or 4 cases because their admissibility under Mallory was questionable, and other available evidence was sufficient. Enforcement officers, particularly Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit officers, seriously handicapped because there is no opportunity for questioning defendants between time of arrest and arraignment, especially in obtaining information about other participants in crime. Most enforcement officers in district were cautioned after Mallory decision and in most instances they have taken defendant before commissioner immediately and refrained from any questioning between arrest and arraignment. No cases involving application of Mallory decision. Confessions admitted in a number of cases without objection and in a few over objection.

[graphic]

CONFESSIONS HELD INADMISSIBLE

Rettig v. U. S. (239 F. (2d) 916 (Oct. 26, 1956)). Reversed by court of appeals; cites and discusses McNabb.

Watson v. U. S. (249 F. (2d) 106 (Aug. 19, 1957)). Reversed by court of appeals; based on Mallory.

Starr v. U. S. (unreported (Feb. 13, 1958)). Reversed by court of appeals on basis of Mallory.

U. S. v. Valente (155 F. Supp. 577 (Oct. 16, 1957)). Confession inadmissible; cites Mallory.

CONFESSIONS HELD ADMISSIBLE

Paquet v. U. S. (236 F. (2d) 203 (July 10, 1956), affirmed). Cites McNabb in footnote (352 U. S. 926, cert. den.).

U. S. v. Washington (237 F. (2d) 632 (Oct. 3, 1956)). McNabb not pertinent. Joseph v. U. S. (239 F. (2d) 524 (Jan. 4, 1957)). Refers to McNabb. Kidd v. U. S. (242 F. (2d) 38 (Mar. 7, 1957), affirmed per curiam). Brief cites McNabb.

U. 8. v. Bando (244 F. (2d) 833 (May 13, 1957), cert. den. 355 U. S. 844). MeNabb not applicable.

Hagan v. U. S. (245 F. (2d) 556 (June 21, 1957)). Admissibility of confession involved but no reference to McNabb or Mallory. Cites Mitchell and Carignan. Horne v. U. S. (246 F. (2d) 83 (June 10, 1957), cert. den. 355 U. S. 878). McNabb does not apply when defendant held by State officers.

Lawson v. U. S. (248 F. (2d) 654). Court of appeals states defendant relies on Mallory but no objection being raised at trial refused to consider the issue. Thomas v. Davis (249 F. (2d) 232 (Oct. 29, 1957)). McNabb and Mallory cases not applicable.

Metoyer v. U. S. (250 F. (2d) 30 (Nov. 13, 1957)). Refers to Mallory.
Perry v. U. S. (unreported (Dec. 12, 1957)). Mallory not applicable.
Blackshear v. U. S. (unreported (Feb. 20, 1958)). Issue not raised in district

court.

U. S. v. White (153 F. Supp. 809 (Aug. 30, 1957)). Motion based on Mallory but issue cannot be raised by title 28, United States Code, section 2255.

U. S. v. Armpriester (156 F. Supp. 134 (Nov. 8, 1957)). Pled guilty; Mallory inapplicable.

U. S. v. Papworth (156 F. Supp. 842 (Nov. 11, 1957)). Refers to McNabb and Mallory.

U. S. v. Hodges (156 F. Supp. 313 (Nov. 14, 1957)). Mallory inapplicable (28 U. S. C. 2255).

Ginoza v. U. S. (C. A. 9). Pending.

Trilling v. U. S. (C. A. D. C.). Pending.

EXHIBIT 7

(EDITOR'S NOTE.--Because of the fact that the preceding compilation prepared by the Department of Justice applies only to States within the continental limits of the United States, the following letters are inserted from Territorial possessions outside the country to indicate the extent of the application of the Mallory ruling in those areas.)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DISTRICT OF ALASKA, FOURTH JUDICIAL DIVISION, Fairbanks, March 4, 1958.

Hon. CHARLES H. SLAYMAN, Jr.,

Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: I received your letter of February 19 on this date since it was sent by regular mail rather than by air.

At the present time our office does not have any Federal prosecutions involving an application of the decision of the Court in Mallory v. U. S. (354 U. S. 449 (1957)).

Respectfully,

GEORGE M. YEAGER, United States Attorney.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
SECOND DIVISION, DISTRICT OF ALASKA,
Nome, March 4, 1958.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of your request for information concerning the use of confessions in evidence since the decision in U. 8. v. Mallory (354 U. S. 449 (1957)).

Since we have not had a petit jury since publication of the case, there have been no decisions or prosecutions involving confessions applicable to the Mallory case or otherwise.

Our net petit jury meets the 24th of this month. I anticipate that there will be some mention of the Mallory case throughout the session as I have 4 or 5 cases where confessions have been taken. In all of these cases the arraignment was within a very short time of the arrest. In one of them the confession was signed after the arraignment. I, therefore, doubt that anything significant will develop.

I hope this will satisfactorily answer your question.
Sincerely yours,

RUSSELL R. HERMANN,
United States Attorney.

Mr. CHARLES H. SLAYMAN, Jr.,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

DISTRICT OF GUAM, Agana, Guam, April 2, 1958.

Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the
Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Reference your inquiry of February 19, 1958, the delivery of which was delayed because the same was handled as boat mail.

This office has not conducted any criminal prosecutions which have involved an application of Mallory v. U. S. (354 U. S. 449), for the reason that no such prosecutions have involved the introduction of confessions taken subsequent to apprehension. It is anticipated, however, that the local law-enforcement agencies will experience extreme difficulty in obtaining admissible confessions under these stringent conditions imposed by the rule of this case.

[blocks in formation]

(Attention Mr. Charles H. Slayman, Jr., chief counsel.)

SIRS: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 19, 1958, on March 5, 1958, relating to cases in this district involving application of Mallory v. U. S. (354 U. S. 449 (1957)).

It is not quite clear from your letter whether you are interested in current cases or all cases. We assume, however, that you are referring primarily to current cases.

We have only one case, which is U. S. v. Ginoza (Criminal No. 11,037 (U. S. D. C.-Hawaii), Appellate Court No. 15,278). This case has been briefed and was argued on April 30, 1957, and is awaiting decision of the court of appeals. We understand that the decision is being held up pending the decision in some case now before the Supreme Court-on what issue we do not know.

A recent similar case involving a confession made while the defendant was in the custody of an Immigration and Naturalization Service investigator is

U. S. v. Paquet (Criminal No. 10,950 (U. S. D. C.-Hawaii), conviction and
Judgment affirmed 236 F. (2d) 203, cert. denied 352 U. S. 926).
We trust the foregoing is all the information that you desire.
Sincerely,

LOUIS B. BLISSARD, United States Attorney. By E. D. CRUMPACKER, Assistant United States Attorney.

Mr. CHARLES H. SLAYMAN, Jr.,

UNITED STATES Department of JUSTICE,
VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES,
Charlotte Amalie, V. I., March 18, 1958.

Chief Counsel, Committee on the Judiciary,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. SLAYMAN: Your letter of February 19, 1958, came by surface mail. Please be informed that during the past 3 years there has been no Federal criminal prosecution in this district involving an application of Mallory v. United States or in which the admissibility of confessions have been seriously contested. In no Federal case has a confession been excluded. Sincerely,

LEON P. MILLER, United States Attorney.

EXHIBIT 8

(The following is a reprint of rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, title 18, United States Code Annotated, and annotations thereto. The West Publishing Co., owner of the copyright, has courteously granted permission to the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee to reprint the following materials as part of these hearings:)

« ForrigeFortsett »