Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-06-26

AAAC NAAACA "a OA4C OaoOANC AZ
4 these cases would go unpunishe
be asceftained but because of tn,
procedures that have to be fol.
lowed to develop the facts"
Mr.. Olney was talking about
the police practice Of questioning
suspects between their arrest anC
their arraignment. Under tn,
/ Supreme Court decision, comics.
sions growing out Of head.
| quarters questioning for thai
purpose is barred from the tria
Of a case.
won't Listen to Truth"
Mr.. Olney said the court is
/ supposed to have its judgments
rest on the best truth it can gel
but the court will not listen tt
the truth for reasons that have
nothing to do with the guilt OF
innocence Of the defendant"
Mr.. Olney said it was hard tt
guess the impact of the decision
as its meaning reaches all the
Federal courts but he predicted
1t will be extreme.
This opinion" he said, says
in so many words that police
can't question a suspect after his
arrest. The place where the
impact of this decision will be
greatest is in the gangstel
crimes. 1t is the real hardened
professional criminals who will
take advantage of this. The
housewife who shoots her hus-
band usually confesses to the
first person who comes along
This decision won't affect her.
But when dealing with GRIM
inal groups. police will be unable
to question the hirelings who are
caught first about the higher
ups they want to reach"
Foresees New Law
Mr.. Olney said he could see
no alternative but to seek a law
spelling out exactly what law
enforcement officers can and
cannot do in arrest and arraign-
ment procedures.
The way for such a law is
already being paved on Capitol
Hill. The Senate Judiciary SUBJ
committee charged with improv-
ing criminal justice in the Fed
eral Courts is known to have
been studying arrest and ar.
raignment procedures fol-
months. Under the chairman.
ship Of Senator OMahoney
Democrat Of Wyoming. the sub.
committee is expected to hole
hearings this fall on preliminary
drafts of a number of proposed
changes in Federal rules
and laws.
The Star called United States
Attorney Paul Williams in New
York to find out how the deci-
sion affected him.
I'VE have not followed the
practice that seems to be out
lined here by the Supreme
Court" he replied. "In many
instances. ir New York, a per-
son is arrested in the evening
and not arraigned until the next
day and in the course of the
night, he has given a confess
sion. So far. these confessions
have been admitted"
ThOrny Issue Here
! Actually. because of decisions
OF the Court of Appeals here,
the question Of how long a per-
son can be detained before he is
arraigned has been more of a
bugaboo here than elsewhere,
Several confessions have been
thrown out and a new trial
ordered because the court felt
there had been unnecessary
delay" between arrest and ar
raignment.
Even before the Mallory deci-
sion, the Districts Council on
Law Enforcement had launched
study to determine whether
a new law should be sought,
Now. the chairman of the coun-
Gil, George L. Hart, jr.. says this
is no longer a local problem as
it was in the past when the
Court Of Appeals here had gone
further than any other circuit
He said he was writing today
to the criminal law section of
the American Bar Association re-
questing that group to study the
impact of the decision.
Hit Unnecessary Delay
The Supreme Court based its
decision on its Interpretation of
Rule S (a) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. This
rule requires that the arrested
person must be brought with
out unnecessary delay" before
the nearest available committing
magistrate
Twice In its decision, the court
referred to the will Of Congress,
which approved the rules. At
one point, referring to an earlier
opinion, the decision said:
I'm order adequately to en-
force the congressional require
ment of prompt arraignment, 1t
was deemed necessary to render
inadmissible discriminating state
ments elected from defendants
during a period Of unlawful de-
tention."
At another point. the decision
said:
1.-THE requirement Of Rule S
(a) is part Of the procedure de-
vised by Congress for safeguard
ing individual rights without
hampering effective and intelli-
gent law enforcement"
On the basis Of these two
statements in the decision,
United States Attorney Oliver
Gasch said he believed the
Supreme Court had given the
Government an opportunity Of
submitting the problem to Con-
gress.