Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-04-20
Help! Help!

A Solomon would stagger away,
talking to himself and shaking his head,
II called upon to explain what the NAL
Tory rule means in the Nations Capital
today.
1t has been almost year since the
Supreme Court handed down its unan-
imous decision in the Mallory casa
ruling which threw out the confession
of convicted rapist and resulted in his
release. Mallory had been held by the
police for 7l2 hours. The reason for
the reversal was that he had not been
arraigned without unnecessary delay"
as required by Federal Rule (a).
We thought from the beginning
that the Supreme Courts decision was
unreasonable in the circumstances OF
the Mallory case and that its meaning
was unclear. Others disagreed, con-
tending that the opinion was both
proper and its meaning clear.
Now, almost year later, comes the
opinion of the United States Court of
Appeals in the case Of John thrilling,
an eager-beaver Safecracker. This APP
pellate court is composed of nine able
and conscientious judges. Yet they are
in hopeless disagreement with respect
to the meaning Of the Mallory rule as
applied to the thrilling case.
The division among the judges is
cited here, not in any needing spirit,
but to illustrate the massive confusion
which prevails. Judge Danaher wrote
what becomes the opinion of the court,
affirming Trilling'S conviction on one
count in three indictments. Trilling,
in three trials, had been found guilty
under all of the indictments. Judge
Danaher was joined in full only by
Judge Burger, and we will return to
Judge Burger later. Judge Bazelon,
joined by Chief Judge Edgerton, would
have thrown out all confessions and
reversed the. one conviction. Judges
Washington and Fahy came to this
same conclusion, but, perhaps signi1-
cantly, they did not join in Judge
Bazelons free-wheeling opinion. Judge
Prettyman was joined by Judges Miller
and Bastian. He agreed with Judge
Danaher as to the correctness of the one
conviction, thus supplying majority
of the court on this point. But Judges
Prettyman, Miller and BaStian thought
that all Of the confessions we're valid
and that all of the convictions should
have been affirmed.
This, then, is the prevailing state OF
the law in the District with respect to
the Mallory ruling. How can any police
man, prosecutor or trial Judge be ex-
pected to know which end is up?
Let's get back to Judge Burger. In
a brief statement he said he agreed
reluctantly with Judge Danaher because
he thought he was compelled" to do
so by the Mallory ruling. He would have
preferred to join Judge Prettyman be-
cause what he said makes sense and
ought to be the law" Then Judge Bur-
ger said this: Rule (a) should be re-
examined by the rule-making process
or by Congress-"
To this we say "Amen" although
we believe action by Congress is prefer
able. This community, in which the
Mallory rule hits with full and Gripping
impact, is in desperate need OF help.
That help can best come through enact
ment of pending legislation which pro-
videS that mere delay in arraignment
shall not serve to invalidate voluntary
confessions. We earnestly hope the de-
cision in the Trilling case will furnish
the extra push needed to get the bill
through Congress.