Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

The COURT. Yes, the time is stayed.

By Mr. STEVAS:

Q. While you were questioning this defendant there at the precinct what time did you complete your interrogation of this defendant concerning this case?—A. About a quarter till 1.

Q. A quarter till 1?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. After your interrogation of this defendant was completed, what did you do?-A. I filled out the necessary police department forms that we make out on each defendant who comes into the precinct preparing cases for the court and for the identification bureau.

Q. Did you go anywhere with the defendant then?-A. I did, sir.

Q. Where was that you went first?

Mr. PACE. May it please the Court, I object, that is irrelevant.

The COURT. Overruled.

A. I took this defendant in the police cruiser to police headquarters, to the Identification Bureau, with my partner.

Q. Was there anyone at the Identification Bureau that you saw?—A. Numerous people.

Q. Where did you go then and what did you do?-A. The Identification Bureau had learned Mr. Van Eckhardt was down at police headquarters looking at the mug file.

Q. Did you see Mr. Van Eckhardt?-A. I talked to Mr. Van Eckhardt; yes, sir.

Q. Was the defendant with you at the time you talked to Mr. Van Eckhardt?— A. No, sir; he was not.

Q. What did you do with defendant, if anything?—A. He was placed in confinement and I made arrangements for a line up, sir.

Q. How many men were in this line up?-A. Six men, sir.

Q. Did you have photographs taken of it?-A. I did, sir.

Q. After forming a line up what did you do?-A. I called Mr. Van Eckhardt into the rear of the Identification Bureau where the six subjects were in line and let Mr. Van Eckhardt look at the subjects and at that time he couldn't give me a positive identification.

Q. Did you have any conversation with any of the persons in the line up at that time? A. I did, sir.

Q. What did you say?—A. I asked all of the subjects in the line up if any of them had seen or knew Mr. Van Eckhardt, the complainant in this case. Q. Did anyone respond?--A. Yes. sir; the defendant.

Q. Who was that person?-A. The defendant stepped forward and said: "I have, sir."

Mr. STEVAS. I would now like to go into the conversation at the precinct.
The COURT. I think I better excuse the jury. Take the jury out.

(At this time the jury withdrew from the courtroom.)

The COURT. When you arrived at the precinct at 12:20 you said you took the defendant up to the second floor at 12:25?

The WITNESS. Yes, sir.

The COURT. For what purpose did you take him up to the second floor? The WITNESS. To interrogate him about the robbery that happened to Mr. Van Eckhardt at about 9: 15 a. m. that morning, sir.

The COURT. You said to interrogate; do you mean you wanted to ask him questions about what happened? Of the happenings?

The WITNESS. Yes, sir.

The COURT. Did you take him there for the purpose of obtaining a confession from him?

The WITNESS. Yes, sir.

The COURT. You did not take him directly to a committing magistrate?
The WITNESS. It was Sunday, sir, and the courts were not open.

The COURT. But the purpose of the delay between the time he was arrested and the time he was to be taken to the committing magistrate, that is, bringing him to the second floor was to give you an opportunity to extract a confession; is that correct?

The WITNESS. Yes, sir.

The COURT. Are there any questions?

By. Mr. STEVAS:

Q. Was your purpose also, Detective Knotts, to give the defendant an opportunity to explain his activities on this particular day? His whereabouts?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have a description of the defendant prior to the time he was arrested and the time you interviewed him?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the defendant matched that description that you had?-A. Yes, sir. Mr. STEVAS. I believe I know what Your Honor was referring to, the language in the Mallory decision.

The COURT. Yes, my hands are tied and the Mallory decision comes down and ties the officer's hands too.

By Mr. STEVAS:

Q. Did you say anything to the defendant before you interrogated him? The COURT. Who spoke first when you went upstairs?

The WITNESs. I spoke first.

The COURT. What did you say to him?

The WITNESS. I told him my name, sir, and that I was called in here on this case and I wanted to talk to him about it.

The COURT, You said you wanted to talk to him about the case? Did he say anything? You told him what he was charged with?

The WITNESS. Yes, sir; that he was charged with a robbery that occurred that morning.

The COURT. After you said he was charged with robbery did he make any statement?

The WITNESS. He did, sir; he admitted what he did that morning.

The COURT. You took him upstairs?

The WITNESS. Yes, sir.

The COURT. You told him what he was charged with?

The WITNESS. That is right.

The COURT. After you told him what he was charged with did he make any statement?

The WITNESS. Yes, sir.

The COURT. Without being asked a question by you?

The WITNESS. I asked him several questions, sir.

The COURT. What I want to know is what you asked him before he said he was the one who did it?

The WITNESS. I really don't know, sir.

The COURT. In other words, he did not volunteer any statement? you answers to questions? Is that right? The WITNESS. Yes, sir.

By Mr. STEVAS:

Q. Did you give him any advice as to any of his rights?

He gave

A. Yes, sir; I told

him that anything/he told me could be used against him in court.

The COURT. Is there anything else?

Mr. STEVAS. No, sir, Your Honor; that is all I can ask him.

The COURT. I will have to exclude the confession.

Is that all the evidence you have?

Mr. STEVAS. The only thing I could offer

The COURT. Have you got anything against the defendant except the confession?

Mr. STEVAS. To identify him?

The COURT. Yes.

Mr. STEVAS. I do have. When the complainant viewed the lineup at police headquarters, the defendant said to Mr. Van Eckhardt, "I recognize you as the person I robbed this morning." Now that is in the nature of a confession but that was in response to a question, "Do any of you men in the lineup recognize this complaining witness?" To which the defendant did respond. The COURT. That was subsequent to the time the officer talked with the defendant.

Mr. STEVAS. Yes, sir.

The COURT. I will have to exclude the confession, I have no alternative.
Mr. STEVAS. That is all the evidence the Government would have.

If Your Honor, plcase, I have available, of course, the son-in-law of one of the victims which, subject to the lineup, the defendant admitted to him he was the one who robbed his father-in-law. We have the money that was recovered from the defendant but there again the defendant admits that was taken from the

The COURT. Well, the Mallory case makes it very clear. The fact that I do not agree with the Mallory decision does not change the situation at all. The Supreme Court decided circumstances may justify a brief delay between the arrest and arraignment, as, for instance, where the story by the accused is susceptible to quick verification through a third party, but the delay must not be of a nature to give opportunity for extraction of a confession so anything that happened at that time is not admissible.

Mr. STEVAS. In that connection, I think there is a distinction between this case and the Mallory case. In the Mallory case it is noted in the opinion that the arrest was merely on suspicion because they had three men.

The COURT. It does not make any difference. From the arrest he said he took him upstairs to extract the confession so anything that took place from that point on is not admissible.

You do not have to argue with me, Mr. Stevas. I agree with you that the police officers should be allowed to ask questions when an arrest is made, but the higher Court has spoken in this manner and there is nothing I can do about it. Mr. PACE. I will make a motion

The COURT. Yes; I will direct a verdict.

Bring in the jury.

The COURT. Mr. Knotts, you are excused and may step down.

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

This record is certified by the undersigned reporter of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to be an excerpt of the official transcript of the proceedings indicated.

CHARGE TO THE JURY

PARTHENIA H. MALLON.

The Court (Curran, J.): Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant before you is charged in two counts of robbery. The matter that I have just heard involves a legal proposition because the Government has proved that two robberies occurred. There is no question about that. The question is, Who committed them? The only evidence the Government would have would be an admission by the defendant who admitted that he committed one of the robberies, at least. Now the rules provide when a person is arrested he must be taken without unnecessary delay before a committing magistrate to be arraigned and that if he is not taken without unnecessary delay, of course, then the Supreme Court has ruled that any confession or statement he might make after that time is not admissible. The Supreme Court did say that circumstances may justify a brief delay between the arrest and arraignment, as, for instance, where the story volunteered by the accused is susceptible to quick verification through a third party, but it must not be of a nature to give opportunity for extraction of a confession. The police officer has testified that he took him upstairs to extract a confession. Now under the circumstances, while I do not agree with the Supreme Court's ruling, there is nothing I can do about it. It is too bad that law-enforcement officials do not have the right to ask certain questions of a person who has been arrested and charged with a crime. But it is because of the Mallory case that I must reluctantly direct a verdict of not guilty.

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

This record is certified by the undersigned reporter of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to be the official transcript of the proceedings indicated.

PARTHENIA H. MALLON.

EXHIBIT 17 (A)

[S. 2432, 85th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To require that any person taken into custody as a suspect in the commission of a crime in the District of Columbia shall be arraigned within twelve hours from the time at which he is taken into custody

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who is taken into custody by any law enforcement officer of the District of Columbia as a suspect in the commission of any crime in the District of Columbia shall, except as provided in section 2, be arraigned within twelve hours from the time at which he was so taken into custody. Any person who is not arraigned within the time prescribed in this section shall be released from custody.

SEC. 2. If, after diligent search, the law enforcement officers of the District of Columbia having custody of any person, are unable to find an officer before whom arraignment may be had within the time prescribed in the first section, such officers may maintain custody of such person until such time as arraignment is possible.

EXHIBIT 17 (B)

[S. 2970, 85th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for the admission of certain evidence so as to safeguard individual rights without hampering effective and intelligent law enforcement

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting immediately following section 3499 of such chapter a new section to be designated as section 3500 and to read as follows:

"§ 3500. Admission of statements

"Statements or confessions or other evidence shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in taking an arrested person before a commissioner or other judicial officer."

SEC. 2. The analysis of chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, immediately preceding section 3481 of such title is amended by adding the following new item: "3500. Admission of statements."

EXHIBIT 17 (c)

[S. 3325, 85th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend chapters 203 and 223 of title 18, United States Code, to insure greater protection for the constitutional rights of accused persons

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) chapter 203 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting immediately following section 3060 of such chapter a new section to be designated as section 3061 and to read as follows:

"83061. Caution to accused persons

"No officer or employee of the United States Government or of the municipal government of the District of Columbia shall interrogate, or request any statement including a confession from, a person accused or suspected of an offense, without first informing him—

"(a) of the nature of the offense;

"(b) that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected;

"(c) that he has the right to have legal counsel present at all times while he is being questioned or is making any statement; and

"(d) that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution."

(b) The analysis of chapter 203 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new item as follows:

"3061. Caution to accused persons."

SEC. 2. (a) Chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting immediately following section 3500 of such chapter a new section to be designated as section 3501 and to read as follows:

"§ 3501. Admissibility of statements

"No statement, including a confession of guilt, shall be admissible in evidence in a criminal prosecution in any district court of the United States or in the municipal court for the District of Columbia until there is established proof that the provisions of section 3061 of this title have been complied with."

(b) The analysis of chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new item as follows:

"3501. Admissibility of statements."

EXHIBIT 17 (D)

[S. 3355, 85th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To prescribe the time in which an arrested person shall be taken before a court, commissioner, or other judicial officer

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended by inserting "(a)" before the text thereof, and by adding at the end a new paragraph as follows:

"(b) Whenever these rules shall require that an arrested person be taken before a court, commissioner, or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States, such person shall be taken before the court, commissioner, or other officer within a period of twelve hours from the time the person was arrested, or, if with diligent effort it is impossible to comply with this requirement within such twelve-hour period, within such longer period as may reasonably be necessary to bring the person before the court, commissioner, or other officer, as the case may be. If any arrested person is not taken before a court, commissioner, or other officer as provided in these rules within the time herein prescribed, he shall be released from custody."

EXHIBIT 18 (A)

[H. R. 8600, 85th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for the admission of certain evidence so as to safeguard individual rights without hampering effective and intelligent law enforcement

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting immediately following section 3499 of such chapter a new section to be designated as section 3500 and to read as follows: "§ 3500. Admission of statements.

"Statements or confessions or other evidence shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in taking an arrested person before a commissioner or other judicial officer."

SEC. 2. The analysis of chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, immediately preceding section 3481 of such title is amended by adding the following new item:

"3500. Admission of statements."

EXHIBIT 18 (B)

[H. R. 11477, 85th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for the admission of certain evidence, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) chapter 223 of title 18, United

« ForrigeFortsett »