Evening star., 1963-04-17
Reject 3 Bills
Adding to Police
Powers to Quiz
BY JACK LANDAU
Star Staff Writer

and refused TO support recon-
mended changes in the Mallory
Rule which would allow in
creased police questioning OF
arrested persons.
More than 900 District law
yers attended the stormy meet
ing in the Mayflower Hotel
which ended with an over
whelming majority voice vote
against three proposed bills
drafted by a blue-ribbon COM
mittee and approved by the
board of directors.
The first proposed bill would
provide that a criminal conf
fession should not be inadmis-I
sible in evidence only becausel
it was obtained during a period
of unnecessary delay between.
arrest and arraignment. {
Six-HOur Period Asked
Another bill would permit
police to detain persons for,
limited police interrogation
without an arrest for a period
of up to six hours. The bill
would provide for summonSeS,,
a warning by a judicial officer
and a record of the interroga-
tion.
The third bill would provide
for the taking into custody OF
a material witness who might
not be easily available at a
trial. and having him post
bond.
The three proposed bills were
drafted by special committee
headed by John E. Powell. They
were approved by the bar asso-
citation board and sent to con-
gressional district committees
for prospective action. The
board had recommended that
the membership approve the
three bills.
] The Mallory rule excludes
from criminal trials confessions
and other evidence given to po-
lice by an arrested person If
the person is not taken prompt
! ly before a committing magis-
tratp and advised TO remain
silent and to consult with
counsel.
Bypassing Claimed
The main thrusts of the at
tacks last night were made by
members Of the associations
committee on criminal law and
procedure. The criminal law
committee had previously voted
against the special committee
report and had charged that.
as the standing committee on
criminal law. it had been by
passed in favor of the specially
selected blue ribbon group.
The criminal law committee
speakers were A. Kenneth Pye,
associate dean of the George
town University Law School;
Joseph Sitnick. vice chairman
of the criminal law committee,
and Attorney Hugh j. MCGEE.
In addition, strong criticism
of the three bills was voiced by
James Bierbower. the only
member of the nine-man spe-
cial committee who dissented
from the majority report.
Among the speakers who sup
ported the three bills we're:
Mr.. Powell, Oliver Gasch, the
former United States attorney
In the District, and David c.
Acheson. the present United
States attorney.
Mr.. Powell said the special
committee report had been
prepared by experienced at
torneys with a total Of 267
years Of practice with an aver
age Of 81 years in the profess
sion. He said that the proposed
changes were based on the
assumption that the rule is not
a constitutional provision, but
is a judicial Interpretation of
the Federal rules Of criminal
procedure.
Mr.. Gasch emphasized that
the "time-honored method OF
police Interrogation" was still
the most effective instrument
available 10 police in solving
crimes.
Mr.. Acheson noted that the
main objection to present
police procedure could be over
come II certain safeguards In
the three proposed bills could
be instituted In connection with
police questioning.
Legality Attacked
The criticism OF the three
bills started with an attack by
Mr. Bierbower who said that
all three bills pose serious con-
stitutional and legal problems.
He particularly noted that the
Supreme Court had been unan-
imous In the Mallory rule
decision In 1857 and the COM
mittee was In effect, setting
itself up against the court.
Mr.. Pye said that the ctim-
inal law committee believed all
three bills posed constitional
problems. He noted constitu-
tional objections. such as no
absolute right TO counsel. the
ability OF the police 10 carry
about blank subpoenas and issue
them at will. and the six-hour
period itself which he said
might be unconstitutional.
Mr.. Sitnick and Mr.. Mcohee
claimed that police frequently
take advantage Of persons,
especially INDECENT persons, they
said, and declared they would
strongly oppose any bills au-
thorizing police 10 increase
their present powers OF investi-
cation without secure safe
guards for individual rights.