Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-05-06
Murder Verdict Reversed

A good many people are going to find
it hard to understand the Court of APP
peals decision reversing the conviction of
Clarence E. Watson, jr., for the brutal
murder of Miss Alyce o. Taggart on
July S, 1858.
Miss Taggart, Government worker,
was beaten to death in her apartment at
SCOTS Hotel Twelve days later Watson
was arrested when he returned home
from work. On two occasions that night
he confessed verbally to the crime and
discussed details with police. But he was
not charged and arraigned until two
o'clock the following afternoon. There
is no showing that he was beaten or mis-
treated in any way, and the appellate
court concluded that these oral confess
Sions were valid and could be used as
evidence against him.
The reversible error, in the courts
view, grew out of the fact that Watson
was not charged and arraigned on the
morning after his arrest. The police say
they needed more time to investigate
details of the oral confession in order
to satisfy themselves that Watson really
was the murderer. The court agreed
that in such case as this there should
be a sufficient investigation, before a
charge, to avoid accusing an innocent
man. But it also thought that by 9 am.
on the following day, after the two oral
confessions, reasonable cause existed for
filing the murder charge and arraigning
Watson. 1t seems to us that this is cor
rect. Had Watson been arraigned that
I,o l.
the magistrate that he need not make
any statement and that he was entitled
to have a lawyer
Be that as it may, the fact Is that
Watson was not arraigned until after
noon by which time he had signed a
written confession. The court said that
the detention, after am, was illegal,
that the written confession was obtained
as result of the illegal detention, and
that its use as evidence against him
required reversal of the conviction
This raises some question as to what
really serves the ends of justice The
court found that the written confession,
in the context of events, was a product
of duress, however subtly applied" But
how could the appellate judges knolO that
Watson, who had already made two valid
oral confessions and who had willingly
re-enacted details of the crime, was not
equally willing to sign the written con-
fesSion? If there was no dureSS between
the time of his arrest and 9 am. of the
following day, the period in which the oral
confessions were made, just what was it
that constituted dureSs between 9 am.
~ III 80
duress existed, but we can find little If
anything in the record to support the
assumption. 1t is worth noting that
Watson told doctor who examined him
that he had been we'll treated by the
police
OF course, had Watson been arraigned
in the morning, and If he had retained
a lawyer at that time, the lawyer probably
would have advised him to make no fur
Their statement to the police. And if he
had needed this advice he would not have
signed the written confession Under the
law, he was entitled to counsel, and also
to remain silent. But it also seems clear
that he committed this murder In the
absence of any rd-degree tactics, and
there were none, was Watson subjected
TO such dureSS as to render his written
confession void? Was there some coercion
between 9 am. and pm, when he was
Illegally detained, which produced the
written confession? If not, the confession
was valid, and could properly have been
used as evidence, despite the illegal de-
tention. 1t is difficult for us, on this
record, to detect evidence of such coercion
or duress. And if there was none, or If
it was so intangible as to be a matter Of
sheer conjecture on the part of the court,
we cannot see that justice is served by
setting aside this conviction for murder.