Court Opinion

ID: 9419487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:49:45.151558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:18.548876
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Reed :
As I understand McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, as explained by the Court’s opinion of today, the McNabb 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. If the above understanding is correct, it is for me a desirable modification of the McNabb case.
However, even as explained I do not agree that the rule works a wise change in federal procedure.
In my view detention without commitment is only one factor for consideration in reaching a conclusion as to whether or not a confession is voluntary. The juristic theory under which a confession should be admitted or barred is bottomed on the testimonial trustworthiness of the confession. If the confession is freely made without inducement or menace, it is admissible. If otherwise made, it is not, for if brought about by false promises or real threats, it has no weight as proper proof of guilt. Wan v. United States, 266 U. S. 1, 14; Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 622; 3 Wigmore Evidence (1940 Ed.) § 882.
As the present record shows no evidence of such coercion, I concur in the result.