Evening star., 1943-12-03
Courts Are Applying
McNabb Ruling Too
Broadly, Bidd|e Says
Continued From First Page.)

mediately after his arrest, but was
held for eight days before arraign-
ment, while police were gathering
evidence.
Reciting the circumstances of the
case, Mr.. Biddle told the subcom-
mittee he had no doubt that this
lengthy detention was mistake, y
but he felt the Court of Appeals de-
ciSion "goes beyond the require
ments of the McNabb rule or the
theory upon which that rule was
evolved" because Mitchell's deten-
ton at the time of the reported con-
fession was proper.
Hobbs Says Action Is Needed.
Representative Hobbs, author of
the measure under discussion, said
afterward that he favored the prin-
ciple of uniform legislation covering
arrangement as proposed by the At
torney General. but what was needed
was an immediate law Ito halt the
flood Of dismiSSalS" that have fol-
lowed in the wake of the McNabb
decision.
Mr.. Biddle was questioned at
length by subcommittee members on
his statement and Representative
Robinson. Republican, of Kentucky
asked him finally if he did not agree
that there must be some change
from the condition created in the
courts by the Supreme Court ruling
There must be some clarifica =
ton" Mr.. Biddle said. adding that
the Supreme Court had no idea
that the lower courts would inter-
pret its ruling in such an extreme
way"
Callahan Testifies.
Another witness today, Assistant
Supt. Harvey G. Callahan, said law
enforcement here had been han
dicapped' by the ruling. He filed
with the subcommittee list of
what he said were about 20 cases
compiled by the department on
which the ruling bore.
The opposition to the bill began
presentation today. J. G.. Luhrsen,
secretary of the Railroad Labor Ex-
ecutives' Association. filed a state
ment in opposition James J.
Laughlin, who represented Mitchell
IN the lower courts, also opposed the
bill. He told the committee that he
wanted to give true picture of the
Mitchell case"
He disputed the contention Of ar
resting officers that the man had
confessed freely.
WilbOrn Case Cited.
The case of Haywood Wilborn, IT.
year-old colored youth, whose ac-
quittal on charges of housebreaking
and attempted criminal assault was
directed by Justice Pine. was an
other cited by the Attorney General
in which he believed the rule had
been applied too broadly. AT the
time of his decision, Justice Pine
said he believed the acquittal was a
miscarriage of justice" but he felt
bound by the higher court.
The Neely and Johnston cases, in
volving charges of murder and as
sault, were others here in which the
Attorney General said he believed
confessions were wrongfully ex-
cluded because of the time element.
The Justice Department has ap-
pealed the Mitchell case in an effort
to get more light on the McNabb
ruling. Mitchells conviction was set
aside because a District statute pro-
vides for arraignment Immediately
and without delay In the McNabb
case, where the defendants were held
as long as 48 hours, the Supreme
Court laid down the general principle
that Federal defendants must be
arraigned with reasonable prompt
ness"
Conviction Still Possible.
1T should. of course, be noted
the Attorney General said after re-
citing the instances where prosecu-
ton had been hindered. that. as
some of these cases show, exclusion
of a confession does not necessarily
mean that the defendants will not
be convicted on other evidence.
Nevertheless. I confess that I am
unable to understand why the trial
court should exhibit the passion for
excluding statements which some OF
these decisions reveal. knowing as
they do that the precise confines
of the McNabb decision remain to be
charted by the Supreme Court, and
that the Government, unlike the
defendant, cannot correct or appeal
ruling excluding a confession or
where the confession is essential
directing verdict of acquittal, even
though the ruling would be deemed
to be erroneous by an appellate
court.
Where the issue is so close as
to be doubtful. l should have
thought that the wiser course, es-
pecially if the confession is neces-
sary for conviction, would be to
admit the evidence subject to cor
rection, if in error. on the defend
ants appeal from conviction"
In implying doubts as to the ade-
quacy of the Hobbs bill. Mr. Biddle
Sdlu lildb IL OllC lSSlSdUlOIl "CIc Gil
acted, "it would leave unaltered the
underlying law with respect to the
duty to arraign and the illegality
Of detention when that duty has
not been fulfilled. To put the ma-
ter another way. you would remove
the sanction which the Supreme
Court has devised to implement the
right of an arrested person to
prompt or immediate arraignment,
but the right itself would remain.
Law enforcement officers still would
labor under these exceedingly strin-
gent arraignment rules, and Con-
gress would presumably intend the
rules to be respected even though
the evidential sanction were re-
moved. That is not, from our point
of view, satisfactory situation"
Cites General Policy.
Critics of the Supreme Court de-
cision have argued that the court
actually made its own law in the
McNabb case, but the Attorney Gen.
eral said that "it has been the gen.
eral policy of Congress to entrus1
the development of evidential doc.
trine in criminal cases to the Su-