Evening star., 1958-05-09
D. c. Circuit Asks Law
ToCIorifyMoIIoryRu

Continued From First Page
which must be filed before the
measure can be considered by
the House Rules Committee to
clear the way for floor action,
will be fled next week.
Sees Overwhelming Approval
"The action of the Judicial
Conference" he concluded.
makes me more confident than
ever that this report will soon
receive the overwhelming ap-
proval Of Congress"
The decision of some of the
judges to record their own po-
sitionS climaxed more than
two hours of argument over
whether clarifying legislation
was needed or whether Rule 5A
should remain as the Supreme
Court interpreted it.
Just as District Court Judge
Edward M. Curran, who was
presiding, started to call for a
vote, Chief Judge Henry w.
Edgerton of the Court Of APP
peals rose to say that no judge
had participated in the discus
sion, and II for one shall abb
stain from voting" Appellate
Judges Charles Fahy and David
L. Bazelon promptly announced
that they, too. would abstain.
Then, Chief Judge Bolitha J.
Laws of District Court stood up.
''I'd like to vote on It," he
announced.
Judge Curran said it was an
individual matter for the judges
to decide.
In the close vote which fol-
lowed, Judge Laws, Judge Cur
ran and District Court Judges
Alexander Holtzoff, F. Dickin-
son Let's, Joseph c. Nc
Garraghy and Charles F. Nc
Laughlin voted for legislation.
Chief Judge Leonard P. Walsh
of Municipal Court Joined
them.
No Judges Vote Against
No judges voted against rec
ommending legislation.
The other appellate and Dis
trict Court judges attending
the session abstained.
While it was clear that the
conference would have been
split down the middle If the
six District Court judges had
not voted, there was consider
able speculation as to how the
vote would have gone If all
the judges present had voted.
The five opinions written by
the Court Of Appeals in one
recent case involving the NAL
lory issue we're cited as an in
dictation that the abstaining
judges would have come up
with a split vote, too.
Before the session got down
to voting, there we're argu-
mentS from four panelists and
a dozen other attorneys.
A committee headed by Jo-
seph d. Bulman. which had
prepared for this session. had
voted nine-to-four to support
the Keating- Willis bill. Most
of the committee members, in
cluding the four panelists,
wanted to explain to their fell
low attorneys why they had
taken the stand they did in the
controversy.
Sees No Confession Time
George L. Hart. jr.. led of
the debate by stating his inter-
probation Of the Mallory deci-
sion-that any confession OBJ
tanned between arrest and ar
raignment would not be ad-
mitted at the trial of the ac-
cused.
Mr.. Hart declared that from
the very beginning Of our
Government, intelligent inter-
rogation by the police has been
one Of the most effective tools
in solving violent crimes. and
confessions obtained through
such interrogation were ad-
missible in every court unless
force was used to get the con-
fession. Now. he said, confess
sions are admissible in the
State courts but not in the
Federal courts.
Myron Ehrlich, arguing to
preserve the Federal rule as
the Supreme Court interpreted
it, said the projections thrown
around the defendant by this
rule included some Of the pro-
tections Of the Bill of Rights.
Such constitutional pro-
tections, he contended, would
disappear If the defendant
could be taken into custody by
Federal officers and detained
without being taken to a COM
mitting magistrate without
unnecessary delay"
F. Joseph Donohue, joining