Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-03-10
What Justice Jackson Said


Supreme Court Justice Jackson has
appeared in news reports of testimony
received by the Senate Judiciary SUBJ
committee on Constitutional Rights.
The subcommittee is considering
two bills introduced to modify the effect
of the Supreme Courts ruling in the
Mallory casa ruling which invali-
dated confession and resulted in the
release of man guilty of rape. The
basis of this ruling was that delay of
about 71a hours in Mallory's case between
arrest and arraignment violated Fed
eral rule of procedure which requires
arraignment without unnecessary de-
lay"
Let's get back to the quotation from
the late Justice jackson. Two witnesses
opposed to the proposed legislation told
the subcommittee that Justice Jackson
had said: Power is heady thing; and
history shows that the police acting on
their own cannot be trusted" Justice
Jackson did say this But he said it in
an illegal search and seizure Casa
case in which the police, without justin
cation, searched a home without war
rant. To suggest that this comment by
Justice Jackson has any bearing on
what his view of the Mallory case might
have been, is, we think, gross distor-
ton
Justice Jackson died before the
court decided the Mallory case. But his
concurring opinion in the case of Watts
VS.. Indiana, decided in 1949, reveals his
real attitude toward convictions based
on confessions. If this able justice is to
be called as witness with respect to
the bills pending before the subcom-
rnittee, it is the Watts case, not the
search and seizure case, which should
be cited.
Watts was guilty of brutal murder
in Indiana. This was conclusively eStab-
1ished when he confessed and told police
where he had hidden the murder
weapon. But the man was arrested on
Wednesday and held until the follow
ing Tuesday in police custody. He was
confined in cell with no place to sit
or sleep except on the floor. He was
INTERCEPTED perSiStently by relays of
police officers until finally, he confessed.
IA type of confession which is banned
under our system of justice despite in
dependent evidence of guilt. Even so,
Chief Justice VinSon and Justices Reed
and Burton diSSented. They thought
the confession had been properly ad-
mitted in evidence and that Watts
should have paid the penalty for his
crime.
Justice Jackson, with obvious mis-
givingS, concurred in the majority
opinion. On the basis of what he said
there is little doubt that he would not
have concurred, and it is very doubtful
that the court itself would have reversed
the conviction, had the facts in the
Watts case been comparable to those
in the Mallory case. Gan essential diff
ference, aside from the facts, is that
the decision in the Watts case turned
on an Interpretation of the due process
of law clause of the Fourteenth Amend
ment. The decision in the Mallory case
was based on Rule of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, which has
no application in a State case. But the
basic questionable admissibility of a
confession-was involved in both cases.)
Justice Jackson agreed that the con-
fesSion in the Watts case was involun-
tary-the period of police detention
without arraignment being six days as
compared to 71a hours in the Mallory
case. But he made this comment in the
Watts case:
The seriousness of the courts judy
ment is that no one suggests that any
course held promise Of solution of (this
murder) other than to take the suspect
into custody for questioning. The alter
native was to close the books on the
crime and forget it. with .the suspect at
large. This is grave choice for society
in which two-thirdS >of the murders
already are closed out as insoluble.
Then Justice Jackson posed the fol-
lowing questions:
suppose the view one takes will turn
on what one thinks should be the right
of an accused person against the State.
Is II his right to have the judgment on
the facts? Or is 1t his right to have a
judgment based on only such evidence as
he cannot conceal from the authorities,
who cannot compel him to testify in court
and also cannot question him before?
Our system comes close to the latter by
any Interpretation for the defendant is
shielded by such safeguards as no system
OF law except the Anglo American con-
cedes to him.
Justice Jackson summed up his
views by saying that the projections
afforded by the Constitution and the Bill
kpf Rights represent the maximum re-