Evening star., 1948-04-21
WHY So Confident?

The United States Court OF Appeals mas
announced another interesting decision
exploring that ill-defined area in which
the rights of persons accused OF crime
conflict with the right of society to be
protected against criminals.
An unusual aspect of this case is that
the appellate court, in effect, reversed the
Judgment of the prosecuting attorney, who
had conceded error on the theory that
confession which had been introduced at
the trial, and which served as the basis
OF conviction, was legally inadmissible.
The Court of Appeals, dividing two to one,
held that the prosecutor was wrong and
that the confession was properly used
against the accused person.
These are the essential facts: man
named/Andrew Upshaw was arrested at
2 am. on Friday, June 8, 1947, as a sus-
pected thief. At 8 am. on Saturday
about 80 hours after the arrest-he con-
fessed, having been questioned during that
period on six occasions OF about half an
hour each. The accused did not claim
that he was subjected to third-degree
methods or anything Of that sort. His
position was simply that his detention
was illegal (the law requires reasonably
prompt arraignment of arrested personS
and that therefore his confession could
not be used against him.
The majority of the appellate judges re-
fused to accept this view, and sustained
Upshaw's conviction. Their position was
and it seems entirely reasonable-that
illegal detention, standing alone and with
out more, does not invalidate confession,
unless the detention itself produced the
confession.
Justice Edgerton dissented. apparently
along two lines. His first ground evidently
was that the confession was inadmissible
as being the product OF coercion inherent
in the illegal detention and the question
ing His second ground was this: 1T Is
unimportant, II true, that 4 confession
may be voluntary although extracted by
illegal detention and questioning. Vol
untary or not, confession so extracted is
not acceptable evidence in 4 Federal
court"
This latter is judicial attitude which
is suggestive of too much concern for the
criminal; too little for society. No court
should tolerate third-degree methods,
brutality or actual coercion OF prisoners by
police. But neither should the courts
undertake to make 1t as difficult as pos
sible for the police to cope with criminals.
In this case the accused had q long
criminal record. He did not claim that
he was forced to confess by police ques-
tioning or that he was abused in any way.
His sole basis for the appeal was the
illegal detention, and while there might
we'll be some provision made for penalizing
police officers who are guilty of illegally
holding prisoners, the courts should not
take an approach to that problem which
inf1icts the punishment on society, not
on the police.
Justice Edgerton sought to bolster his
position with a quotation from Supreme
Court decision to the effect that convic-
tions should be secured "by methods that
commend themselves to progressive and
self-confdent society" That has q nice
ring to it, but 1t does not alter the fact
that society is not faring too we'll in its
battle against the criminal element. What
basis Is there for SNUG and self-confldent
attitude on the part OF society at q time
when lawlessness, far from declining, is
on the increase?