Court Opinion

ID: 9449068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:54:48.147241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:40.718388
License: Public Domain

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Coleman was a passenger in the car involved in the Sheriff Road robbery and killing. Facts are stated in our opinion in Jackson v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. -, 313 F.2d 572 (1962).
The police questioned Coleman on six or seven separate occasions, and as far as appears could have questioned him again at will, before they arrested him at 6:45 p. m. on January 17, 1961. They took him across town to a police station and locked him in a room. Between 7:30 and 8:00 p. m. he was interrogated and made a non-incriminatory statement about his whereabouts at the time of the crime. He was again locked up alone from 8:00 to about 8:45. Three officers then arrived who ha<J been called for the admitted purpose of questioning him. Questioning was resumed, and a “ ‘threshold’ ” confession was obtained at 8:50. From 9:10 to 10:50 p. m. it was reduced to writing. He was then “booked”. He was not brought before a magistrate until 10:00 a. m. the next day.
There was unnecessary delay. As long ago as 1946 we said that “both by law and practice” a prisoner may be brought before a committing magistrate “at any hour.” Akowskey v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 353, 354, 158 F.2d 649, 650. We recently said: “[N]ot only a magistrate, but an Assistant United States Attorney, are, and were * * * available to the police twenty-four hours a day.” Jones v. United States, 113 U.S. App.D.C. 256, 307 F.2d 397, 399 (1962). Cf. Ginoza v. United States, 279 F.2d 616 (9th Cir., 1960). If because of some extraordinary circumstance no magistrate were available, it would not follow that questioning could continue. The time between arrest and confession was not, as we said it was in the Heideman case, “consumed only by the questions * * * and by the preparing of papers, booking, photographing, fingerprinting and transportation * * Heideman v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 128, 131, 259 F.2d 943, 946 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 959, 79 S.Ct. 800, 3 L.Ed. 2d 767 (1959). The delay was “of a nature to give opportunity for the extraction of a confession.” Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 455, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1360, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957). Since the confessions were obtained during an unnecessary and therefore unlawful detention they should have been excluded. F.R.Crim.P. 5(a); McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943). Other cases are cited in our opinion in Tatum v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. -, 313 F.2d 579. Failure to exclude the confessions was prejudicial error and the judgment must be reversed. Jones v. United States, supra.
Since there must be a new trial, we consider claims of error based on the contention that there was no evidence that appellant aided or abetted in the shooting and that, therefore, he could not be guilty of murder in the second degree. These claims must be rejected. “All those who assemble themselves together with an intent to commit a wrongful act, the execution whereof makes probable in the nature of things a crime not specifically designed, but incidental to that which was the object of the confederacy, are responsible * * * for the acts of each, if done in pursuance of, or as incidental to, the common design.” Turberville v. United States, 112 U.S.App. D.C. 400, 402-403, 303 F.2d 411, 413-414 (1962), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 946, 82 *578S.Ct. 1596, 1607, 8 L.Ed.2d 813 (1962).1 The jury could reasonably regard the shooting as incidental to the common design of robbery. The court did not instruct specifically on “common purpose”, but the general instructions on aiding and abetting were adequate and counsel for Coleman did not object to them.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

. Quoting 1 Wharton, Criminal Law § 258 (12th ed. 1932).
1. “A confession [made] during a period of necessary delay in arraignment is not inadmissible because that period was followed by a period of unnecessary delay.” See Lockley v. United States, 106 U.S. App.D.C. 163, at 166, 270 F.2d 915, at 918 (1959).