Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-02-16
View of Mallory Case


For the past several months
this writer has witnessed, with
grave concern, The Stars
alteration in dealing with the
Mallory decision. I have
watched, with no less interest,
the recent and obviously sue
cessful campaign to kindle
public INDICATION through all
the various methods entrusted
to a free press. Now that the
crusade. spurred by an obvi.
ously sincere concern for the,
public welfare. has reached
a feverish pitch. and your
tireless efforts show signs of
productivity. let us be neither
shrill nor caustic. Rather let
us, in a spirit of solidarity,
try to appraise the facts and.
in so doing, ferret out the con-
else rhythm Of American JUS
tice of which that decision is
an integral part.
In striving for an under
standing and insight into the
complex Jungle Of statements
surrounding the ruling. we
must forget the man Mallory
and his heinous crime. We
must not allow our ultimate
Judgment to be impaired by
the fact that a rapist was
turned from death row to the
streets.
Let's do more than merely
"try" to look at the facts.
Indeed! Let us make a thor
ough and sober examination
Of them. Since the egregious
campaign for corrective legis-
lation has emphasized Rule
5(a) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure as the
legal loophole, it follows that
a congressional evaluation of
its merit and possible de-
merits is in order. However.
for the sake of clarity. let's
take a look at the manner in
which those requirements
were ignored in the subject
case.
Rule 5(a) states: IAN off,
Ger making an arrest under a
warrant issued upon a COM
plant or any person making
an arrest without a warrant
shall take the arrested person
without unnecessary delay
before the nearest available
commissioner or before any
other nearby officer empow-
cred to commit persons
charged with offenses against
the laws Of the United States.
When a person arrested with
out a warrant Is brought be-
fore a commissioner or ther
officer. a complaint shall be
filed forthwith.
The summation of fact con-
tanned in the Supreme Courts
decision states: HE MALLORY
was arrested early in the aft
ernoon and detained at police
headquarters within the vi
cinity Of numerous commit
ting magistrates. He was not
told Of his right to counsel
or to a preliminary examina-
ton before a magistrate, nor
was he warned that he might
keep silent and that any
statement made by him might
be used against him. Not until
$3.50 pm. was en- attempt
made to take him before a
committing magistrate and he
was not actually taken before
a magistrate until the next
morning. :"
The breakdown. and indeed
there was one. cannot. by any
elastic imagination. be at
tributed to Rule 5 (a). On
the contrary. 1t appears that
1t occurred as a result of the
interrogators' choice to ignore
those exacting requirements.
Although one couldn't deny
their sincere devotion to duty
and concern for public safety.
the fact remains that Rule 5
(a) was a law and will Of the
people on the day Of arrest.
Since June "a. the dispu-
tants have been plodding
from one discordant view to
the next. The question Of
individual rights as opposed
TO the right Of society to pro-
tect itself has been worn to
the point where Congress
might be whipped into a state
Of frenzied evaporation when
trying to bring order to chaos.
II appears. though SUPER
ficially. that the rights Of So
ciety have been tossed to the
winds. while the dubious
rights Of gangsters are re-
tanned. No one. possessed Of
clear thought, could settle for
so skinny a conclusion.
Last June. when the de-
cision was handed down, It
bore all the luster that only
American justice can produce.
However. after nearly eight