Evening star., 1943-10-26
Blind Justice

The District Court of Appeals
acting under what it regarded as a
mandate from the Supreme Court
has set aside the conviction OF
Washington'S so-called society
burglar" To the credit of the ap-
pellate court, it may be said that
this was done with obvious reluc-
tance and in the apprehension that
the reversal would lead to a miscar-
riage of justice.
The evidence against the accused
consisted of finding stolen goods in
his home and confession which he
made voluntarily to police on the
day of his arrest. There was NO
reason to believe that third degree"
methods had been used, or that the
accused man had been threatened or
mlstreated in any way. But the
police, after receiving the confession,
waited week before taking the
prisoner into court, and it was this
circumstance which convinced the
Court Of Appeals that the conviction
would have to be set aside under the
rule laid down by the Supreme Court
in the McNabb decision of last
March
This latter decision deserves more
general attention than it has re-
ceived, for it is striking illustrat ton
of the extent to which sentimental
ity can sometimes obstruct the
processes of justice
The McNabbs - three of them
were Tennessee "moOnShiners. In
July of 1910 Federal officers attempt
ed to catch them in the act of SELL
ing illegal whisky, but the suspects
ran away. While the officers were
pouring out the whisky a rock was
thrown at them from a nearby ceme-
terry, and one of the officials turned
his fiashlight in that direction.
Thereupon the moonshiners opened
fire and the officer was killed-a
plain case of cold -blooded murder.
Police rounded up a group of sus-
poets and they were questioned in
termittently for two days before
confessions were obtained. There
was no evidence of brutality or third
degree methods. The suspects were
advised by the chief investigator
that they need not make any state
ment and that they need not fear
the use Of force by the police. In
these circumstances the confessions
were admitted at the trial, in which
the defendants were unwilling to
take the stand in their own behalf,
and the conviction was upheld in the
Circuit Court. But the Supreme
Court, while not contending the con-
LESSONS were made involuntarily,
nullifled the conviction on the
ground that the suspects had not
been taken promptly before a COM
mltting magistrate or judge after
they had been arrested. The court
based its decision on the claimed
authority of acts of Congress reouir-
ing that arrested persons be taken
promptly before a committing au-
thorlty, although none Of these leg
islative enactments applies directly
to a case of this kind and Congress
has not forbidden the use of con-
fessions in evidence where there has
been delay in arraignment. Never
theless, in this case. the court held
the delay to have been unreasonable.
and that the confessions therefore
could not be used against the de-
PENDANTS.
The result is that the Supreme
Court, in its extreme solicitude for
the individual has devised new
technicalities which criminals NAV
seize upon to escape just punish
ment. In this instance a wantOn
murder goes unpuniShed for no valid
reason related to the substantial
rights of the accused. And, as evi-
denced by the local decision, the
adverse effects of the Supreme
Courts action are beginning to be
felt-and they will be increasingly
felt-throughout the country. In a
period when crimes of violence are
on the increase, the lawbreakers are
given substantial new hope OF find
ing refuge in technicalities, and the
basic, but often neglected, right of
law-abiding people to be protected
against the depredations of criminals
receives another setback.