Opinion ID: 1096122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Provide Prompt Initial Appearance?

Text: Abram also bases his argument that the confession is inadmissible on the failure of the authorities to provide him with an initial appearance within a reasonable time. As mentioned, he was functionally arrested without a warrant and questioned beginning in the early afternoon of Thursday, August 12, 1982. Although a judge was available at all times, Abram was not given his initial appearance until early Sunday afternoon, August 15, 1982, immediately after he confessed. Unif.Crim.R.Cir.Ct.Prac. 1.04 requires that every arrested person be taken before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay. See also, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-3-17 (Supp. 1991); Unif.Crim.R.Cir.Ct.Prac. 1.02 (upon completion of an arrest without a warrant, the person arrested should be taken forthwith before a magistrate) (emphasis added). The importance of this first appearance is that the accused is advised of his right to remain silent, his right to appointment of counsel, his right to communicate with counsel and family, his right to preliminary hearing, and the conditions under which he may obtain release, if at all. Unif.Crim.R.Cir.Ct.Prac. 1.04. In Nicholson v. State, 523 So.2d 68 (Miss. 1988) (Robertson, J. concurring), four justices joined the concurring opinion of Justice Robertson to give meaning and effect to the phrase without unnecessary delay. See also Coleman v. State, 592 So.2d 517, 520 (Miss. 1991). In Nicholson, the defendant had been taken into custody on the evening of September 3, 1985, though not officially arrested. He remained in police custody, not free to leave, for some 40 hours prior to the voice line-up which was conducted sometime on September 5, 1985. At no time during this period of restraint was Nicholson given an initial appearance and access to counsel. Because the major purpose of the initial appearance is to secure to the accused prompt ... advice of his right to counsel by a judicial officer ... who [presumably] has no professional duty nor personal inclination to try to exact a waiver of that right, it is imperative that the initial appearance be given without unnecessary delay as the rule commands. Id. at 77. Without unnecessary delay means as soon as custody, booking, administrative and security needs have been met. Id. at 76. Once these needs have been met, there is but one possible excuse for delay: lack of access to a judge. Id. In the present case, there is absolutely no disputing the availability of Judge Speights from the time Abram was taken into custody, thus belying any excuse for not providing Abram with an initial appearance sooner. There was an obvious and deliberate attempt by the authorities in charge to manipulate the system and deny Abram its benefits until a confession was obtained. The failure to provide Abram with an initial appearance sooner had devastating consequences for the defense, clearly derogating from his right to a fair trial. Common sense suggests that law enforcement authorities would never have obtained an uncounseled confession from Abram had he been given an initial appearance, and consequently, access to counsel, without unnecessary delay. See cf., Nicholson, 523 So.2d at 77. We hold the failure to provide the initial appearance reversible since, as a consequence, Abram gave a confession in the absence of, and in violation of, his right to counsel. Such an error could hardly be deemed harmless since the conviction of Abram for capital murder was based entirely on his confession.