Legal Document

354 U.S. 449 77 Supreme Court Reporter 1356 1 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1479 Andrew R. MALLORY, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. Number 521. Argued April 1, 1957. Decided June 24, Mr. William baron Bryant, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. Edward L. Barrett, Jr., Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered opinion Court. Petitioner was convicted rape in District Columbia, and, as authorized by Code, jury imposed a death sentence. The Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting. 98 U.S.App.D.C. 406, 236 Federal Reporter, 2nd 701. Since an important question involving interpretation Rules Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., involved this capital case, we granted petition certiorari. 352 877, 103, 79. 2 occurred at six p.m. on 7, 1954, basement apartment house inhabited victim. She had descended few minutes previous wash some laundry. Experiencing difficulty detaching hose sink, she sought help from janitor, who lived with his wife, two grown sons, younger son and petitioner, nineteen-year-old half-brother. alone time. He detached returned quarters. Very shortly thereafter, masked man, whose general features were identified resemble those petitioner nephews, attacked woman. heard no descend wooden steps that furnished only means entering above. 3 nephews disappeared after crime committed. former apprehended following afternoon between two-thirty taken, along older also suspects, police headquarters. At least four officers questioned him there presence other thirty forty-five minutes, beginning examination telling him, according testimony, brother said he assailant. strenuously denied guilt. spent rest headquarters, company suspects good part About three asked submit 'lie detector' tests, they agreed. officer charge polygraph machine not located almost hours, during which time received food drink. then examined first. Questioning began just eight Only operator present small room, door closed. 4 Following hour one-half steady interrogation, 'first stated could have done crime, or might it. finally responsible. * *' (Testimony operator, 70.) Not until ten p.m., repeated confession officers, did attempt reach Commissioner purpose arraignment. Failing this, obtained petitioner's consent deputy coroner, noted indicia physical psychological coercion. confronted complaining witness '(p)ractically every man Sex Squad,' response questioning confession. Between eleven-thirty twelve-thirty a.m. dictated typist. next morning brought before Commissioner. trial, delayed year because doubt about capacity understand proceedings against signed introduced evidence. 5 case calls proper application Rule 5(a) promulgated 1946, 327 821. That provides: 6 '(a) Appearance An making arrest under warrant issued upon complaint any person without shall take arrested unnecessary delay nearest available commissioner nearby empowered commit persons charged offenses laws States. When is officer, be filed forthwith.' 7 This provision has both statutory judicial antecedents guidance applying requirement arraignment 'without delay' compendious restatement, substantive change, several prior specific federal provisions. (E.g., 20 Statutes-at-Large 327, 341; 48 1008; 28 416.) See Dession, New Procedure I, 55 Yale L.J. 694, 707. Nearly all similar enactments. 8 In McNabb versus States, 318 332, 343—344, 63 608, 614, 87 L.Ed. 819, spelled out reasons policy behind body legislation: 9 'The impressively pervasive criminal procedure plain. awful instruments law cannot entrusted single functionary. complicated process justice therefore divided into different parts, responsibility separately vested various participants whom relies its vindication. Legislation such requiring must reasonable promptness show legal cause detaining persons, constitutes safeguard—not assuring protection innocent but securing conviction guilty methods commend themselves progressive self-confident society. For procedural checks resort reprehensible practices known 'third degree' which, though universally rejected indefensible, still find their way use. It aims avoid evil implications secret interrogation accused crime.' 10 unwarranted detention led tempting utilization intensive easily gliding evils 'the third degree,' held defendants beyond when committing magistrate readily accessible constituted 'wilful disobedience law.' order adequately enforce congressional prompt arraignment, it deemed necessary render inadmissible incriminating statements elicited period unlawful detention. 11 Upshaw 335 410, 69 170, 93 100, came here been operation, made clear 5(a)'s standard implied relaxation doctrine. 12 devised Congress safeguarding individual rights hampering effective intelligent enforcement. Provisions related contemplate allows arresting little more leeway than interval ordinary administrative required bring suspect magistrate. 4(a) 'If appears probable believe offense committed defendant it, issue *.' 4(b) requires 'shall command commissioner.' And 5(b) (c) reveal function arraignment: 13 '(b) Statement inform right retain counsel preliminary examination. make statement may used him. allow opportunity consult admit bail provided these rules. 14 '(c) Preliminary Examination. called plead. If waives examination, forthwith hold answer district court. does waive hear evidence within cross-examine witnesses introduce own behalf. court; otherwise discharge rules.' 15 scheme initiating prosecution plainly defined. mere suspicion 'probable cause.' step proceeding arraign quickly possible so advised promptly determined. may, course, 'booked' police. But taken headquarters carry inquiry lends itself, even if designed, eliciting damaging support ultimately 16 duty enjoined indicates call mechanical automatic obedience. Circumstances justify brief instance, where story volunteered susceptible quick verification through parties. nature give extraction 17 circumstances preclude holding delay.' early detained vicinity numerous magistrates. Even ample sources regarding chief suspect, first approximately half hour. lad limited intelligence produced confession, 'lie-detector' test. told magistrate, nor warned keep silent 'that him.' After hours further same building housed, lie-detector another waver. confessed, caution lost purpose, We sanction extended delay, resulting subordinating rule discretion finding exceptional disregard. secure well claim, quite sincerely, merely trying check information given Against claim potentialities practice urged stands barrier. escape constraint laid crime. Presumably, whomever arrest, were, large use interrogating determine should 19 Reversed remanded.

Classification Label: 0