Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-08-21
Mallory Fears

are said to fear that the Senate'S version
of the Mallory bill is hopeleSSly defec-
tive because it stipulates that a reason
able" delay in arraignment shall not
invalidate voluntary confessions in GRIM
inal cases. The inclusion of the word
reasonable" is the only change made
by the Senate in the bill originally
adopted in the House.
1t is possible, of course, that the
courts may put an Interpretation on
reasonable" in future cases which
would defeat the purpose of both House
and Senate-namely, to clarity the
Mallory ruling and strike balance be-
tween the rights of suspect and the
rights of the public. But we see no
reason to cross that bridge until 1t is
reached.
Meanwhile, the Senate version of
the bill, if finally enacted, certainly will
be a material aid to fair and effective
law enforcement in the Nations Capital.
And we hope that the helpful features
of this bill will not be lost as result
of irreconcilable disagreement between
House and Senate conferees.
The Supreme Court, in its Mallory
decision, said that suspect is not to
be taken to police headquarters in order
to carry out process of inquiry that
lends itself, even if not so designed, to
eliciting damaging statements to sup
port the arrest and ultimately his guilt"
Circumstances, the court added, may
justify a "brief delay" between arrest
and arraignment. But "the delay must
not be of nature to give opportunity
for the extraction of confession"
This says, or seems to say, that the
police, during any delay between arrest
and arraignment, may not question a
suspect for the purpose of obtaining
confession.
The Senate bill, however, plainly
contemplateS that the police may hold
a suspect for reasonable" period of
time prior to arraignment. Further
more, there is an important second sec
ton in the bill This provides that no
confession ''made by an arrested person
during an Interrogation by a law en-
forcement officer" shall be admissible
unless, prior to questioning, the suspect
has been warned that he need not make
a statement and that any statement he
makes may be used in evidence against
him.
This, as we read it, is significant.
For the two sections of the bill, taken
together, appear to mean that, once the
required warning has been given, the
police may question suspect for rea-
Sonable period of time between arrest
and arraignment, and may use as evil
dence any voluntary confession which
is made Presumably, this also means
that evidence corroborating confess
sion, if obtained in conformity with the
requirements of the bill, may also be
used This is important, for the courts
have been banning corroborative evil
dence in cases where confessions have
been excluded. Yet this corroborative
evidence-for example, finding MUIR
der weapon where suspect confessed
to hiding it-can often demonstrate
confession.
This adds up to very great i'm
provement over the situation which pre-
walls in the District today. Yet it will
all be lost if disagreement between the
confereeS results in failure to enact any
bill Consequently, we hope that the
confereeS will reach an agreement, and
that fears as to the Interpretation which
may be put on the word reasonable
will be held in allegiance pending some
actual court ruling on the point.