Court Opinion

ID: 9443610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:25:54.832095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:33.089328
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially).
Under the circumstances of this case, I do not think it can be said that there was “unnecessary delay” in taking the accused before a committing magistrate within the meaning of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Cf. concurring opinion, Pierce v. United States, 1952, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 19, 197 F.2d 189; United States v. Mitchell, 1944, 322 U.S. 65, 64 S.Ct. 896, 88 L.Ed. 1140; United States v. Leviton, 2 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 848; Haines v. United States, 9 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 546, certiorari denied, 1951, 342 U.S. 888, 72 S.Ct. 172. Hence I do not join in a consideration of the court’s ruling “ * * * that illegal detention before presentment to a committing magistrate, standing alone and without more, does not invalidate a confession made during its continuance, unless the detention produced the disclosure.” 1 In all other^ respects I concur in the court’s opinion.

. Majority opinion, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 202 F.2d 334.