Evening star., 1943-11-16
Justice Defeated

The Jealous regard Of the Supreme
Court for legal technicalities-a
sentiment which has been permitted
to override the right Of the public
to be protected against criminal
acts-resulted yesterday in what a
District Court Judge called a mis-
carriage Of justice"
A youthful defendant was beins
tried for housebreaNng and at
tempted criminal assault on a young
Government worker. Police officers
testided that the defendant had
made voluntary confession and.
upon being taken to the young
womans room, had re-enacted the
crime IN detail. The complainant,
although unable to identify the
defendant as being the man who
entered her room on the night of
March II, confirmed the police story
that the suspect had re-enacted the
crime In her presence on the day
after his arrest. The defendant
denied making a confession and
denied that he had re-enacted the
crime. In the absence Of other con-
stderations, q dispute Of this kind
would go to the jury for determine
ton.
But in this case, despite the claim
that the man confessed shortly after
his arrest during the night of the
offense, it was shown that there was
delay Of about seven hours in turn
ing him over to Juvenile Court au-
thorities. Chronologically, according
to police. the man was arrested about
1850 am, made verbal confession
ABOUT $3.50 am, signed q written
confession at II am, and was turned
over to Juvenile Court at $3.50 p.m.
The court had opened for business
that day at 8 am.
These facts being conceded by the
Government, Trial Justice David A
Pine said that a decision of the su-
preme Court In the McNabb case.
and a subsequent ruling by the Dis
trict Court Of Appeals in the Mitchell
case, required him to rule out the
confession and the testimony as to
re-enactment Of the crime. Since
there was no other evidence against
the defendant, the Judge dismissed
the charge, although asserting he
felt the result was a miscarriage of
Justice" and that the "inadmissible
evidence" pointed to the guilt of the
accused.
The rulings Of the Supreme Court
and the Court Of Appeals were based
on various statutes requiring that
suspects be arraigned promptly" or
Immediately" after their arrest.
But there is nothing in any of these
statutes which says that confessions
voluntarily made by defendants are
1nadmissible as evidence in event
the suspects are not arraigned
promptly. That is the product of a
new form Of judicial lawmaking by
the Supreme Court in the McNabb
case.
An entirely different situation is
presented in those cases in which
the police use force or threats or in
ducements to obtain confessions. In
such cases the courts should be scru-
pulous in safeguarding the rights of
accused persons. But no such issue
Is presented here. What the deci-
sion Of the Supreme Court and the
interpretive ruling by the Court of
Appeals have done is to lay down the
legal proposition that an accused
person, II not arraigned immedi-
ately, must be turned loose, no mat
ter how guilty and vicious he may
be, or how voluntary his confession,
or how unimportant the delay in his
arraignment.
This is a state Of the law, fixed
by arbitrary judicial decree, which,
without serving any constructive
purpose, will enable dangerous GRIM
inals to escape trial and punishment
on the flimsiest Of technical grounds.
1t cuts down the rights of the public
to the protection Of the law and re-
wives the old and hitherto discred-
1ted doctrine that sheer technicali-
ties may be seized upon to defeat
Justice. 1t is doctrine which the