Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-07-06
Reviews Mallory Case

The Mallory case has caused
much comment in the papers.
He was convicted Of rape in
our District Court. and, as
authorized by the District
Code. the jury imposed the
death sentence. This convic-
ton was affirmed by our
United States Court of APP
peals. On June "a, 1857. the
Supreme Court reversed the
Court Of Appeals and re-
manded the case for q new
trial. They held that the ar
resting officers did not arraign
Mallory without unnecessary
delay" as provided by the Fed
eral Rules of Criminal Pro-
cedure. That the detention of
Mallory from 2:30 pm. until
1880 pm, when he dictated
his confession. was unreason-
able detention. The next
morning he was brought be-
fore q United States Commits
sioner and arraigned.
Justice Felix Frankfurter
delivered the opinion Of the
Supreme Court. 1t appears to
be unanimous. 1t is a short.
seven-page opinion. The facts
are related but not in too great
detail. When this conviction
was affirmed by the u. S. Court
of Appeals for the District,
the majority opinion was de-
livered by Justice E. Barrett
Prettyman. This was concurred
in by Justice Walter M. Bas-
tan. A strong dissent was writ
ten by Justice. David L. Baze-
Ion. The Supreme Court agreed
with Justice Bazelon.
On June rs, 1857, o. S. At
torney for the District Of CO.
lumbia Oliver Gasch went be-
fore Chief Judge Bolitha j.
Laws Of our District Court and
moved that the court dismiss
the indictment against NAL
Tory because to subject this
innocent victim" to the ordeal
of testifying again about these
distressing circumstances
would be unfair to her and her
husband unless there was a
reasonable prospect of obtain
ing conviction under the
Governments evidence. And
lin the state which we now
find it as q result of the Su-
preme Courts decision, there
is serious doubt in my mind
as to whether the Government
has q case" So Mallory Is
now free, out in the pure air.
This is the background. The
reason I am writing this let
ter is because some of your
readers may Jump at the con-
clusion that the police treated
this man cruelty when they
obtained his confession, in
holding him nine hours. So, I
will quote the facts as related
by Justice Prettyman in his
opinion Of June %. 1856. and
let the people judge for them
selves whether this man got a
fair deal. Here they are:
The rape occurred at about
8 o'clock in the evening of
April 7, 1854, in the furnace
room in the basement of the
apartment house where the
complaining witness lived. The
aSsailant was masked. The
janitor's quarters we're also
in the basement and were oc-
cupied by the janitor and his
wife, two grown sons. and a
younger son. Appellant NAL
lory, a half brother Of the
janitor, had also been living
in the janitor's quarters for
about six weeks prior to the
day Of the crime. The investi-
eating police officers suspected
Mallory and his two grown
nephews. Mallory and one Of
the nephews had left the place
Immediately after the crime
Mallory was found and ar.
rested at about $3.50 on the
afternoon following the crime
April 8. He and the two
nephews were taken TO police
headquarters and questioned
for o short time. At some time
after 4o'clock all three agreed
to take lie detector tests. Som,
delay occurred while the ON
Ger in charge Of the poly
graph was located. Durinl
this interval meal was serveC
to the three men, no furthel
interrogation occurring durinI
this time. Until the lie de
tector tests began the threl
men we're together. The.
were examined one after tn
other, the two nephews first
and finally, at about 8 O'Clock
the officer began his examina
ton Of Mallory. At abou
$3.50 Mallory admitted gull
describing in detail what hal
occurred. and immediatel
thereafter he repeated his &C
count 10 two other oficerI