Evidence-Admissibility of confession obtained prior to arraignment-The MeNabb rule. University of Illinois Law Forum. Volume 1956, page 505. Fall 1956. May 1957. Evidence Admissibility of confessions-Effect of illegal detention. Southwestern Law Journal. Volume 11, page 240. Spring 1957. Evidence Admissibility of oral confessions procured by Federal officers prior to arraignment. Notre Dame Lawyer. Volume 32, page 536. Evidence Admission and confession-Distinction in jury charge. Review. Volume 31, page 357. February 1957. Evidence Admission of postconspiracy confession at a joint trial. versity Law Review. Volume 37, page 258. Spring 1957. Evidence Confession of coconspirator admissible under proper instructions in joint trial. Vanderbilt Law Review. Volume 10, page 859. June 1957. Evidence Confessions during confinement. Oklahoma Law Review. Volume 9, page 419. November 1956. Evidence Conspiracy-Admissibility of coconspirator's confession. Boston Uni University Tulane Law Review. of Cincinnati Law Review. Volume 26, page 334. Spring 1957. Evidence Corroboration of confession-Corpus delicti. Volume 31, page 361. February 1957. Evidence-Effect of oath on admissibility of confessions. South Carolina Law Quarterly. Volume 8, page 466. Summer 1956. Evidence Extrajudicial confession inadmissible without corroborate evidence to establish corpus delicti. Washington University Law Quarterly. Volume 1956, page 483. December 1956. Evidence-Hearsay-Codefendant's confession in a joint trial for conspiracy. Villanova Law Review. Volume 2, page 13. November 1956. Evidence Postconspiracy confession-Efficacy of limiting instructions in joint trial. Brooklyn Law Review. Volume 23, page 314. April 1957. Implicating confession of coconspirator held admissible in joint trial. Columbia Law Review. Volume 56, page 1112. November 1956. Interpretation of McNabb rule on exclusion of confessions remains unsettled. Columbia Law Review. Volume 57, page 735. May 1957. "Involuntary" confessions. Tulane Law Review. Volume 31, page 125. December 1956. Psychology of confession. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Rogers opinion; confusion in the involuntary confession area. Connecticut Bar 31, Uniform Code January 1957. Irish Jurist. Vol When is a statement not a confession? South African Law Journal. Volume 73, page 369. November 1956. Interrogation techniques. Idaho State Bar. Volume 30, page 92. 1956. Constitutional limitations on substantive criminal law. Rocky Mountain Law Review. Volume 29, page 275. April 1957. Criminal cases-Right to counsel. Journal of the State Bar of California. Volume 31, page 465. September-October 1956. Duty of prosecutor to insure defendant a fair trial. New York University Law Review. Volume 32, page 607. March 1957. Improper and prejudicial conduct of the prosecutor which remained unadmonished by the presiding justice coupled with an unnecessary delay in arraignment held to constitute reversible error despite overwhelming proof of guilt. New York Law Forum. Volume 3, page 102. January 1957. Obligation of securing a speedy trial. Wyoming Law Journal. Volume 11, page 44. Fall 1956. Preliminary examinations. Journal of Criminal Law (English). Volume 21, page 173. April-June 1957. Symposium on the criminal law of New Jersey-Rights of criminal defendants. Foreword. P. Forman; Former conviction and former acquittal. J. O. Bigelow; Formulation of enforcement policy; an anatomy of the prosecutor's discretion prior to accusation. C. C. Ferguson, Jr. Contempt of court and unlawful police action. A. W. Blumrosen; The future of the criminal law: criminal law in its modern public law context. G. R. Moran; Habeas corpus and the indigent prisoner. W. Rossmoore, S. M. Koenigsberg; The indigent defendant. A. S. Trebach. Rutgers Law Review. Volume 11, page 487. Washington University Temple Law Quarterly. (a) of Federal Rules of Suppression of nonconfessional evidence under rule 5 JULY 1957 TO JANUARY 1958 Federal courts' control of illegal conduct of State officers who aid in enforcement Confessions in criminal cases. Trial Lawyer's Guide. Volume 1, page 107. Constitutional laws-Coerced confessions-Length of confinement as a test. Constitutional law-Psychological coercion held to void confessions obtained Criminal law-Evidence-Confessions-Voluntary character in general. Kan- Criminal law-Implicating confession of coconspirator permitted at joint trial Delay between arrest and arraignment for any purpose other than routine police Evidence-Admissibility of confessions as to codefendants. Missouri Law Re- Evidence Admissions against interest-Implicating confession of one coconspir- Evidence Confession obtained during illegal detention inadmissible in federal Evidence Confessions-Admission of codefendant's confession in criminal pro- Evidence Constitutional law-Effect of delay in arraignment on admissibility Restrictions in the law of interrogation and confessions. Northwestern Uni- Safeguards in the law of interrogation and confessions. Northwestern University FEBRUARY 1958 Right of an accused to obtain pretrial inspection of his confession. Journal of Utah court holds evidence independent of extrajudicial confession insufficient to 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. (Ashcraft v. 2. Confessions-Admission of confession obtained after 36 hours of continuous questioning by state officers held deprivation of due process. 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 (U. S. v. Mitchell, 64 Sup. Ct. 896.) Southern California Law Review, 18: 63-7. September 1944. case. 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. (Up April 1949. Vanderbilt 5. Evidence in Federal courts-Confessions-Delay in arraignment. shaw.) Boston University Law Review, 29: 250-260. Law Review, 2: 472-475. April 1949. 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. June 1949. 9. North Carolina Law Review, 27: 552-558. 13. Tulsa Law Review, 23: 577-580. November 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. August 1949. (a) History of McNabb rule: 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 (Texas), 264 SW (2d) 106), Baylor Law Review, 6:378-385. Spring 1954. 4. Admissibility of confessions secured prior to arraignment, Intra Law Re view (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 (Pikes 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. |