Court Opinion

ID: 9445426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:28:43.67146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:15.690506
License: Public Domain

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge,
with whom BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges, concur, dissenting.
Between 5:30 and 6:00 a. m.1 Sunday, October 24, 1954, Robert Rettig was. stabbed twice as he lay asleep on a couch in the living room of his second-floor apartment. He died soon thereafter. The two stab wounds, either of which would have caused death, were inflicted with a knife or dagger owned by Rettig himself which he kept, in its. sheath, as an ornament on a television table in the living room. His common-law wife Katherine was indicted for the killing and a jury found her guilty of' second degree murder. She appeals, and a majority of the court reverse her conviction. I dissent.
The principal reason for reversal advanced by the appellant is that an oral confession, attributed to her in the testimony of two police officers, was inadmissible because they said it was given after midnight Sunday when she had been in custody since 7:30 that morning without having been presented to a committing-magistrate. In her testimony she did not. attribute any coercive effect to the delay in arraignment, nor did she say the-alleged confession was induced or extorted by any form of physical or psychological persuasion or coercion. She does not. make such claims in argument here. Thus she did not say from the stand and does not say now that she confessed involuntarily. Instead, she stoutly swore she did not confess in the post-midnight interview.2 She is therefore in a poor position to rely on the McNabb rule3 and assert that, had she been more-promptly arraigned, she would not have-confessed. Her testimony makes equally-*928difficult the position of those who say she confessed involuntarily.
Nevertheless, despite the inconsistency of doing so, on appeal the appellant invokes the so-called McNabb rule. Solely because the officers were permitted to testify that Mrs. Rettig told them she stabbed her husband, my brothers of the majority reverse her conviction. Some of them think the confession was the result of pressures (which she denied wére ever applied to her) and was therefore involuntary, and others think it was inadmissible under the doctrine of the Mc-Nabb case, because of the mere lapse of time before arraignment plus what they regard as aggravating circumstances short of coercion. These two theories differ sharply, as will appear.
1. If the confession was involuntarily given, its admission in evidence violated Mrs. Rettig’s constitutional right to due process, and it is not necessary to consider whether the other evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict. This is because the reception of a confession which denies a constitutional right requires reversal, even though the evidence apart from the confession was sufficient to justify the verdict of guilt. Brown v. Allen, 1953, 344 U.S. 443, 475, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469; Malinski v. People of State of New York, 1945, 324 U.S. 401, 404, 65 S.Ct. 781, 89 L.Ed. 1029; Lyons v. State of Oklahoma, 1944, 322 U.S. 596-597, 64 S.Ct. 1208, 88 L.Ed. 1481; Bram v. United States, 1897,168 U.S. 532, 540-542, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568. This is true in federal as well as in state courts.
2. On the other hand, if Mrs. Rettig’s confession was merely inadmissible under the McNabb rule prescribed for federal courts,4 no constitutional right was involved. The Supreme Court said in the McNabb opinion, and has repeated several times since, that the federal rule does not arise from constitutional sources.5 That being true, a reviewing court which holds a confession inadmissible because it was obtained in violation of the McNabb rule should not reverse the conviction on that account unless it appears that, with the confession excluded, the remaining evidence was insufficient to support'the jury’s finding of guilt. This is the indirect teaching of the McNabb and Upshaw cases, in both of which the Supreme Court was at pains to point out that the confessions constituted the basis of the conviction. The Supreme Court said in the McNabb case, 318 U.S. at page 338, 63 S.Ct. at page 612, “Conced-edly, the admissions made by Freeman, Raymond and Benjamin [McNabb] constituted the crux of the Government’s case against them, and the convictions cannot stand if such evidence be excluded.” Likewise, in its opinion in Up-shaw v. United States, 1948, 335 U.S. 410-411, 69 S.Ct. 170, the Court said, “Pre-trial confessions of guilt without which petitioner [Upshaw] could not have been convicted were admitted in evidence against his objection that they had been illegally obtained.” And the Court said in a footnote at page 411 of 335 U.S., at page 170 of 69 S.Ct., “After the evidence was all in, the trial judge stated that without the confessions there was ‘nothing left in the case.’ ” Cf. Garner v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 384,174 F.2d 499, 502, certiorari denied 1949, 337 U.S. 945, 69 S.Ct. 1502, 93 L.Ed. 1748.
I cannot concur in the reversal of this conviction on either of the two theories just described and differentiated, for reasons which will be stated separately with respect to each.
1. In my opinion, the confession was not involuntarily given and so was not excludable on constitutional grounds. As I have said, Mrs. Rettig did not claim the confession was obtained from her by any form of coercion or inducement. She simply said she did not confess, thus in effect saying she had not yielded to any sort of pressure. From this I think it follows that the corifession cannot logically be said to have been involuntarily *929given, unless it ought to be held as a matter of law that the detention on Sunday and the events and circumstances of that day which preceded the confession were in themselves so oppressive as to induce an involuntary admission of guilt, even though the appellant herself did not claim she had been coerced thereby.
I do not think the delay in arraignment and the events of Sunday amounted per se to coercion. The Supreme Court’s treatment of the McNabb case confirms me in that view. For the facts assumed and described in the McNabb opinion showed much more prolonged delay in arraignment, much more intensive questioning and, in general, much more psychological pressure than the facts here disclose. Yet the Supreme Court did not hold the McNabb confessions involuntary, and did not reverse the convictions on constitutional grounds. It expressly said its decision was not based on the violation of any constitutional right. Hence I think the experienced trial judge was correct when, after an extensive hearing with the jury absent, he refused to rule that Mrs. Rettig’s confession was involuntary as a matter of law on the face of the factual situation, but left it to the jury to decide the question of voluntariness. Cf. Tyler v. United States, 1951, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 2, 6, 193 F.2d 24, 28, certiorari denied 1952, 343 U.S. 908, 72 S.Ct. 639, 96 L.Ed. 1326. My conclusion is there is no basis for reversal on the ground that the confession was obtained in violation of the appellant’s constitutional rights.
2. Next to be considered is the second theory, adopted by some of the majority, that the McNabb rule was violated here, from which they seem to think reversal automatically follows. My brothers Edgerton and Bazelon say, “The issue is whether the rule adopted by the Supreme Court in McNabb v. United States * * * requires exclusion of the testimony concerning appellant’s oral confession.” I suggest they do not state the issue fully. One question is, as they say, whether Mrs. Rettig’s confession was inadmissible under the McNabb doctrine. But if so, there arises immediately the question whether the conviction should therefore be reversed. For, as I have pointed out above in differentiating the two majority theories, reversal does not necessarily flow from a violation of the McNabb rule of evidence.
Before taking up the two questions which constitute the McNabb issue here, it will be helpful to state in the language of the Supreme Court what the rule is and what it is not. Before doing so, I interject that we of the minority who would affirm are in accord with Judge Danaher’s analysis of the McNabb rule and his approval of the Pierce and Allen cases.
In United States v. Mitchell, 1944, 322 U.S. 65, 67, 64 S.Ct. 896, 897, the Court described the McNabb ruling by saying:
“* # * Inexcusable detention for the purpose of illegally extracting evidence from an accused, and 'the successful extraction of such in-culpatory statements by continuous questioning for many hours under psychological pressure, were the decisive factors in the McNabb case which led us to rule that a conviction on such evidence could not stand.”
And Mr. Justice Reed, concurring in the result of the Mitchell opinion, said, 322 U.S. at page 71, 64 S.Ct. at page 898:
“As I understand McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 322, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, as explained by the Court’s opinion of today, the Mc-Nabb rule is that where there has been illegal detention of a prisoner, joined with other circumstances which are deemed by this Court to be contrary to proper conduct of federal prosecutions, the confession will not be admitted. Further, this refusal of admission is required even though the detention plus the conduct do not together amount to duress or coercion. * * * ”
In Upshaw v. United States, 1948, 335 U.S. 410, 413, 69 S.Ct. 170, the Supreme *930Court6 said the McNabb rule is “that a confession is inadmissible if made during illegal detention due to failure promptly to carry a prisoner before a committing magistrate, whether or not the ‘confession is the result of torture, physical or psychological * * *.’ ”7
With respect to the Upshaw statement of the McNabb rule we said in Garner v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 364, 174 F.2d 499, 502, certiorari denied 1949, 337 U.S. 945, 69 S.Ct. 1502:
“Under this rule, however, there still remains open in every case the question whether the detention was illegal; that is, whether the delay in presenting the prisoner to a magistrate was unnecessary. For Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not command that an arrested person be taken before a magistrate ‘forthwith.' It provides that the officer ‘shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available commissioner or before any other nearby officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States.’ This phrasing envisages the possibility of necessary delay. It would be an extension of the Up-shaw opinion to construe it as holding that a confession is inadmissible if given after delay in presenting the defendant to a magistrate because such a construction would completely ignore the word ‘unnecessary’ in Rule 5(a).”
In this case, a murder suspect was taken into custody about 7:30 Sunday morning and was carried before a committing magistrate at 9:00 o’clock Monday morning. I do not think this delay was prima facie “unreasonable” within the meaning of Rule 5(a). Mrs. Rettig made no effort to prove that it was, although the burden of doing so rested upon her. Tillotson v. United States, 231 F.2d at page 738; Pierce v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. at page 23, 197 F.2d at page 193; White v. United States, 5 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 509, 512; United States v. Leviton, 2 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 848, 854; United States v. Walker, 2 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 564, 567. I know of no requirement that committing magistrates be on duty all day Sunday. The police worked all that day tracking down leads, such as appellant’s statement that an unknown intruder killed her husband, which might have exonerated her. Nor does it appear that arraignment was delayed in order to extract the confession. Nobody said, as did an officer in the Upshaw case, that the suspect was held for that purpose. For these reasons, it is my opinion that Mrs. Rettig’s confession was not barred by the McNabb rule.8
*931In our zeal to protect the appellant under the McNabb rule of evidence, we should not forget that a jury heard undeniably admissible evidence tending to show guilt, quite apart from the somewhat equivocal confession, and then solemnly determined that she terminated Robert Rettig’s right to life and so forfeited her own right to liberty. We should remember that society has a stake in this business. The public has the right to expect the criminal laws to be strictly enforced. They should never be given any reason to suppose that at times the courts coddle convicted criminals by unduly emphasizing their rights over the wrongs they have done to the rights of others. I am afraid that the reversal of this conviction on a borderline application of the McNabb doctrine may seem to some to support such a supposition. I would affirm.

. This time range was fixed by the appellant.

. Whether she did or not was submitted to the jury. It may have agreed with her, basing its verdict on the other evidence of guilt.

. McNabb v. United States, 1943, 318 U.S.. 832, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819.

. 318 U.S. at page 341, 63 S.Ct. at page 613.

. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. at page 476, 73 S.Ct. at page 417.

. With Chief Justice Vinson and Justices Reed, Jackson and Burton dissenting.

. While I think we correctly interpreted the Upshaw case in our opinions in Til-lotson v. United States, 1956, 97 U.S. App.D.C. 402, 231 F.2d 736; Allen v. United States, 1952, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 197, 202 F.2d 329; and Pierce v. United States, 1952, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 19, 197 F.2d 189, all of which the Supreme Court declined to review, I need not depend on that interpretation here, and I do not because we are told that denial of certiorari does not necessarily indicate acquiescence.

. One of the majority opinions states that Mrs. Rettig was not offered an opportunity to see her own relatives or counsel until after the inquest (held on Monday). The statement ignores the fact that two police officers testified Mrs. Rettig not only did not ask to see ber relatives on Sunday but, on tbe contrary, stated “she didn’t want to see any of her people; that she had not been in touch with them and that she didn’t want to see them.” One of the police officers testified he made repeated efforts on Sunday to find out from Mrs. Rettig the name or location of a relative but to no avail. The same officer testified he believed it was not until Monday that Mrs. Rettig gave him the name of her sister. There was evidence that she did not want the services of the attorney provided for her by her sister.
On the other hand, Mrs. Rettig testified that on Sunday she requested a police officer to call her sister, and gave him the telephone number. She further testified that one of the police officers *931told her she could not call anyone. Thus, if the absence of Mrs. Rettig’s relatives from the police station on Sunday had significance, it was for the jury to determine whether such absence was the fault of the police or of Mrs. Rettig. The majority, however, seems to have made this determination, ignoring the testimony of the two police officers.
Other points should be clarified because *932they are not clearly reflected in the two majority opinions. Mrs. Rettig was not forced to take lie detector tests but agreed to do so when asked by the police officer. She made no claim that she asked for food and that it was denied at any time; on the contrary, she stated she never asked for anything to eat or drink except coffee, which she received. A police officer testified he offered Mrs. Rettig food at about 11:30 Sunday morning but that she declined to take anything. She testified she could not say the officer didn’t offer her food but that “to my knowledge I did not hear him.” There is no claim by Mrs. Rettig that she was harassed by lack of sleep or prevented from sleep by “continuous questioning” as in the McNabb case. There is no evidence from her in any form that any act, omission or delay on the part of the police in any way compelled, induced, or led her to do or say anything in the nature of admitting guilt.