Evening star., 1943-11-29
McNubb
Continued From First Page.)

OF Mitchell who had been found
guilty Of two charges of housebreak-
ing and larceny Several other cases
have been thrown out of local courts
here in the wake of the Court of
Appeals ruling, and the Govern
ment has encountered trouble with
prosecutions elsewhere over the
country also.
In the McNabb case, the Supreme
Court said the defendants who were
held for varying periods up to 48
hours. should have been a ranged
with reasonable promptness.
The District code calls for arraign-
ment immediately end without de-
lay Mitchell was held for eight
days, and eventuall? charged with
more than 80 cases involving house
breaking.
While the opinion of the Court
Of Appeals may possibly be inter-
preted to mean that the confess
sions would have been admissible
had respondent (defendant imme-
diately thereafter been arraigned
before committing magistrate, "
the Justice Department petition
said, I'VE believe that this case pre-
sents directly the question whether
the McNabb rule forbids the use of
all confessions prior to arraignment
and that it shows the existence of
conflict Of understanding as to the
scope OF that rule, requiring resolu-
ton by this court
The petition added that the facts
OF the McNabb case and the Ian
guage OF the majority opinion, read
by Justice Frankfurter, are con-
sistent with the understanding that
Tor the confession to be rendered
lnadmissible by the operation of this
rule, it must have been given in the
course of the unlawful detention
and IN response to interrogation"
Continuing, the petition says:
The decision establishes, we be-
lieve, rule whereby unlawful de-
tention is conclusively presumed to
bear causative relation to confess
sions given during such detention in
response to Interrogation by Gov
eminent officers. We believe that it
goes no further"
On the Mitchell case, on the other
hand, it was contended, "the con-
fessions held inadmissible on the
authority of the McNabb decision
were not given in response to inter
rogation, and they were not obtained
during period of unlawful deten-
ton. There had as yet been no un-
necessary delay in arraignment at
the time the confessions were given.
They were given almost Immediately
after respondents arrest, if he was
in fact arrested"
Was Held for Eight Days.
Mitchell was arrested october u
in connection with theft at the
home of Harry G. Meem and at the
same time was said to have admitted
another robbery and then to have
led officers to his home, where loot
from others was uncovered. His
admissions were made shortly after
his arrest, police said, but he was
held for investigation" for eight
days while the various robberies of
which he was accused were investi-
gated, He later repudiated the
confessions and said he had been
mistreated by the officers.
The Government, in seeking Su-
preme Court review, argued that an
arraignment on October 13 would
have been lawful, and, while con-
ceding that it was unlawful to hold
the prisoner seven days or more.
adds that "it was not during that
period that the confessions were
given"
The decision of the Court of Ap-
peals," the petition says, amounts
either to a holding that confession
lawfully obtained may be invalidated
by subsequent unlawful action on
the part of the arresting officers, or
to holding that no confession is
admissible if secured during the in
!terval between arrest and arraign-
ment, however short and within the
bounds Of legality that interval
Io