Court Opinion

ID: 9446349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:52:44.251083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:37.563127
License: Public Domain

REED, Associate Justice, sitting by designation.
A welter of incidents tinged with liquor and sex resulted in a man’s death, The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to three to ten years imprisonment. The same court-appointed counsel represented the accused at the trial and in this Court. After denial by the trial court of a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, this Court allowed such appeal, The appellant’s sole ground for reversal is admission of a “second confession,” so denominated by appellant, though it might more accurately be called a state*687ment of events preceding the death. Objection was duly made on the ground that the statement was taken during detention by police in violation of Rule 5 (a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1
We understand that the rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court on the admissibility in criminal trials of statements or confessions of the defendant after arrest and before commitment proceedings are to be applied with the following considerations in mind.
Such cases call for inquiry as to whether Rule 5(a) has been violated. If it has, the admission of such statement, over defendant s objection, and if it is material, is an error that requires reversa^-
The significant words are “shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available commissioner or other properly empowered officer. That phrase, without unnecessary delay is a compendious restatement, without substantive change of the various former statutory requirements for prompt presentation of an arrested prisoner before an authorized magistrate.2 The phrase appeared in the Preliminary Draft of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure (1943), p. 11, issued after McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, and was employed in lieu of the words “immediately” and “promptly,” referred to in that case, 318 Page S.Ct. at page 614.
The Preliminary Draft included a subsection (b).3 This was dropped later, The Advisory Committee and the Supreme Court, at the time of their adoption of the Rules, were familiar with the former commentary, p. 266, of the American Law Institute on its proposed Code 0f Criminal Procedure (1930), section 39 concerning preliminary examination.4 That commentary called attention to Scotch practice. The draftsmen of Rule g and gUpreme Court did not accept the suggestion of the “simplest, clearest, and. apparently_ the most effective” rule f í50 lce ™ error lon- n co ' land’ Interrogations of arrested persons by the police are forbidden * * *? ” ~ ^ w, Preliminary Draft, supra, p. 14. Use of ,, , , . statements, too, received under such cir- , ? ’ , _ cumstances, could have been forbidden, mi i nev were not
Instead, the Supreme Court pointed out in the McNabb case, supra, 318 U.S. at page 344, 63 S.Ct. at page 614 that the police must act “with rea*688sonable promptness”; 318 U.S. on page 346, 63 S.Ct. on page 615 “[t]he mere fact that a confession was made while in the custody of the police does not render it inadmissible.” Cf. United States v. Carignan, 342 U.S. 36, 72 S.Ct. 97, 96 L. Ed. 48. In United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65, 64 S.Ct. 896, 88 L.Ed. 1140, although the defendant was eventually illegally detained following prompt confession after arrest, the prosecution’s introduction of his statement in evidence was approved. Thus the holding was that later “illegal detention did not render inadmissible his prior confessions.”5 Confession or statements to police, after arrest and during illegal detention, not in the presence of a commissioner or other official authorized to hold hearings and advise the prisoner of his rights, are inadmissible.6
eral Rules occurs when there is unnec essary delay m e pre íminary earing preceding the statement. The statement is then inadmissible whether it is vo untary or involuntary in the common law or due process sense.7 In England, prisoners’ statements to officers are admissible although made after arrest, if proper caution as to their rights has been given by the officer.8 The judge, however, may admit the statement even if taken contrary to the Judges Rules, if he concludes it would be fair to do so.9 In Canada, a preliminary caution as to his rights is required before statements after arrest are allowed in evidence.10 Australia applies the English Judges Rules as England does. It was said in R. v. Jeffries, (1947) 47 S.R. (N.S.W.) 284, at pp. 313-314:
“The obligation resting upon police officers is to put all questions fairly and to refrain from anything in the nature of a threat or any attempt to extort an admission. But it is in the interests of the community that all crimes should be fully investigated with the object of bringing malefactors to justice and such investigations must not be unduly hampered. * * * Upon the particular circumstances of each case depends the answer to the question as to the admissibility of such evidence.” Cf. 30 Australian L.J. 60
qhe statutory direction to “produce a prisoner before a magistrate without unnecessary delay» is not a meaSure as de-fxnitiVe as the standard yard. It did have a background of interpretation, however, wben it appeared in the Rules.11 “Without unnecessary delay” had been used in New York at least since 1887, Code of Criminal Procedure § 165, and in Illinois since 1874, Smith-Hurd Criminal Code § 660. Disregard of the duty of arraignment, it was held in People v. Mummiani, 258 N.Y. 394, 396, 180 N.E. 94, 95, “does *689not avail, however, without more to invalidate an intermediate confession.” People v. Alex, 265 N.Y. 192, 194, 192 N. E. 289, 94 A.L.R. 1033. Of course, evidence of illegal detention is admissible on the question of coercion. People v. Elmore, 277 N.Y. 397, 14 N.E.2d 451, 124 A.L.R. 465. Thus they differ from the federal rule.
Both New York and Illinois recognize that the rule for production “without unnecessary delay” is during the ordinary professional hours of commissioners and judges.
“Furthermore, his detention was not unlawful, for section 7 of division 6 of the Criminal Code, Ill.Rev. Stat.1947, chap. 38, par. 660, does not require that courts of committing magistrates shall be open on Saturday night, Sunday, and Sunday night in order to enable peace officers to bring an arrested person before one for arraignment when, during all that time, the crime committed has not been fully solved in respect to the identity of other participants, and the arrested person’s connection therewith is still under investigation. 12
This is the view of the Supreme Court, Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. at page 453, 77 S.Ct. at page 1359. Police detention was willful disobedience of law “when a committing magistrate was readily accessible.”
We turn now to the application to this case of these rulings. The people and courts of this Nation are one m their desire to support police efforts to detect and punish crime, and equally concerned with assuring a defendant of a fair and just trial. The value in enforcement of careful interrogation of suspects is recognized and encouraged until such time as a suspect is taken into custody. The danger of alarm to accomplices or flight by suspects before arrest complicates-such preliminary investigations. On arrest the prisoner must be taken before any reasonably accessible magistrate without unnecessary delay. But until there is such an opportunity to reach such an official, the Supreme Court has not held reasonable questioning without more of prisoners must cease. Each case depends upon its own facts as to what is or *s not unnecessary delay,
The significant testimony concerning the investigation and trial of this homicide is this. After a fist fight with decedent, around 1:30 P.M., Tuesday, July 31, 1956, in appellant’s apartment, over decedent’s association with appellant’s wife, both decedent and appellant being “half drunk,” appellant forcibly ejected decedent from the room, down a short flight of cement steps, with a final shove through the door onto the sidewalk, There decedent fell upon the tree strip between the walk and the highway. An abrasion was on his skull near the ear when decedent was picked up by the police, on a call from the apartment. He was locked up at No. 11 Precinct at 2:55 P.M., Tuesday, as intoxicated,
It developed that the head injury was more serious than the police realized at first. He was taken by them to D. C. General Hospital and admitted at 7:25 P.M. An emergency operation on the brain followed and he died Wednesday morning at 9:55 o’clock.
Meanwhile; WOrd having reached the precinct of the seriousness of the injury appellant was arrested Tuesday night about 10:30 at bls m°tner * holf by D"; tectlve Remhardt’ charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, to-wit a trained fist, and made a statement to the same officer, when alone with him, in the Detective Office. Transcription was finished at 11:15 P.M. that day. It appears *690below.13 Next morning, Wednesday, about 9 A.M., Detective Wallace of the Homicide Squad on hospital assignment in a routine check, having heard of the nature of the injury but not uhe death, was told by the prisoner verbally the same facts as were m his earlier state-ment. 14
A little later that oner was taken to the United States Branch of the Police Court for his appearance under Rule 5, Fed.Rules Crim. Proe., on the charge of assault. While awaiting appearance, between 10 and 10:30 A.M., it was learned for the first time of the death of the injured man at 9:55 A.M. Judge Howard then told the officer “that the case should be taken to the Homicide Squad.” This was done by the United States Marshal. We find nothing in the record to support the statement of appellant’s brief that “he was standing before the arraigning judge” when the Court was advised of the death of the injured man. He may have been in the room or a cell awaiting his turn. His exact location seems unimportant. No appearance was made before the magistrate at that time and nothing appears in the record that the prisoner was advised of his right to counsel. No witness queried by the defense had heard such advice given,
Neither doeg ^ recQrd ghow gpecifi_ cally the reason for the judge,g direction to retum the prigoner to the precinct. It may be norma] practice to defer ap_ pearance on minor charges until an arrest on homicide or other more serious charges that may have developed has been made. At any rate the prisoner was returned to No. 1 precinct “not later” than eleven o’clock. At 12:45 P.M. the taking of his statement on the homicide started in the offices of the Homicide Squad before Reinhardt, a precinct detective, two detective sergeants, and a civilian clerk. The questioner, Sergeant Qiarke first read: ’
"Charles Stanislas Porter, you are being held on account of the death Bertram Bowers, white, who was pronounced dead August 1, 1956, ^his death being caused by his being beaten while in premises 1107 Trenon Blace, Southeast, Apartment 2 about 2:45 p. m., July 31, 1956.
“I now ask you if you want to make a complete statement telling *691what knowledge you have of this beating so it can be taken down in typewritten form.
“Before making such statement I advise you that your statement must be made freely and voluntarily and also your statement will be used against you in court at your trial if it becomes necessary.
“After hearing what I have just said to you, do you want to make a complete statement?
“Answer by Charles Stanislas Porter: Yes sir.” Transcript of Record, 61-62.
Thereafter appellant amplified the same facts set out in the first statement quoted above. The only pertinent new information or incident in the second statement of which appellant does or could complain is this single question and answer:
“Question: Have you ever had any experience as a boxer?
“Answer: When I was about 14 years old I used to tram with the 7 boys club but I never had an actual fight m the ring.” Transcript of Record, 68.
Nothing further appears as to any púgil-istic experience. The statement was finished at 1:44 P.M. The appellant was taken before the committing magistrate that day at 3:30 P.M. Nothing appears in the record as to whether an appear-anee could have been arranged during the interim.
First. Under these circumstances, was the admission in evidence of either the first or the second statement or confession or admission an error, requiring reversal? Or, stated differently, was the production of the prisoner for preliminary appearance “without unnecessary delay?”
This Court has recently decided two cases that bear upon the problems in this case — Metoyer v. United States, 1957, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 62, 250 F.2d 30, and Trilling v. United States, - U.S.App. D.C. -, 260 F.2d 677. The Metoyer case involved an arrest at noon and a detention in Maryland of a suspect in a District of Columbia crime for an hour before the arrival of the District police, Thereupon he promptly admitted certain facts to these police. It was reduced to writing before the District warrant arrived, after which, at 3:30 P.M., he was first taken before a judge, advised of his rights, and extradited. This Court held the confession admissible over a dissent 011 the ground there was “no excuse” for the delay under the Mallory case. This Court said:
"If police are compelled to arraign all potential suspects before questioning any of them we shall have used the artificial niceties and superficial technicalities concerning our liberties to reduce genuine and important rights to absurdity-and dangerous absurdity at that Every citizen has a right to insist that the police make some pertinent and definitive inquiry before he may be arraigned on a criminal charge which even uf it is later abandoned inflicts on him a serious stigma. 250 F.2d 33
In the Trilling case a prisoner arrested A.M. was questioned by several officers for short periods until he confessed before 8 A.M. His appearance was iat°r but the confession was admit-
_ tew words will suffice on the question °t the admission of the first statement. See note 13, supra. No objection was made by defense counsel. The statement was given almost immediately. It was without pressure of any kind except iTm mere fact of detention. To say it was inadmissible would be to say no statement to police is admissible after arrest a step that the Supreme Court has not taken in the Rules and has dedined to adopt in the McNabb, Mitchell and Carignan cases.15 The arrest was *692past the ordinary hours for appearances, See note 12, supra. There is no rule of law in federal courts that bars the admissibility of extra-judicial statements of prisoners to the police after arrest and before the time has expired of permissible detention between arrest and appearance before a magistrate.
While we have no doubt that the second statement was made within the period of necessary delay, in advance of the required appearance before a magistrate, a different conclusion is reasonably possible. The result might well depend upon a court’s weighing of the interests of society in law enforcement through the disclosure of the actual facts surrounding an alleged criminal act and the protection of a prisoner from being induced, even though without unconstitutional coercion, to make a clean breast of his participation in the action charged. There is nothing in the case to call for the belaboring of the police for lazy methods of investigation by compelling confession instead of searching in the haystack for the sharp needle of fact. They were prompt to respond to duty and when taking the statements, cautioned the prisoner in almost the words of the Judges’ Rules of England.16 In our system of justice, as in England, it has not been thought necessary for the police to inform everyone, upon arrest, “Remember, you are entitled to the advice of counsel before you answer any question.”17 The time that an accused is entitled to counsel for the protection of his rights on criminal charges is from arraignment, that is plea after indictment, to the con-elusion of his trial. Cf. Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 278, 66 S.Ct. 116, 90 L.Ed. 61. Rule 5(a), Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., requires that he be advised at his appearance of his right to .retain counsel,
As for the prisoner’s appearance before the magistrate after the charge of manslaughter, we conclude that also was without unnecessary delay. Surely a man arrested Tuesday night at eleven o’clock for assault need not be taken before a magistrate until the next morning. No one will assert, without specific proof, that the personnel of our police departments are so regardless of court rulings on interrogation as to require every prisoner to be taken before a magistrate at midnight for every kind of offense or before the opening of the courts in the morning.
Promptly at usual court hours, though the seriousness of decedent’s injuries was already known to the police, but not frig death, the prisoner was presented before the court. When the judge heard of the death, he directed the return of the prisoner by the United States Marshal to the City Homicide Squad. On his return, with the probability of a charge of some degree of homicide, what more natural than that the police would take a statement before selecting a charge of murder or manslaughter. It is to be noted that the statement was made after a question as to whether the prisoner wanted to do so. See 103 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 258 F.2d 690, supra. We do not think there was unnecessary delay,
Second. But let us assume that the second appearance before the magistrate was unnecessarily delayed and therefore inadmissible under rulings of the Supreme Court. A court would then have to decide whether the error in admitting the statement was material to *693the result of the trial.18 The reason the series of cases from McNabb to Mallory set aside the verdicts on account of the admissions of the confessions is that facts were obtained by the confessions that may have aided the jury in reaching their result. In the Mallory case, the Court succinctly summarized the reason»for exclusion:
“In order adequately to enforce the congressional requirement of prompt arraignment, it was deemed necessary to render inadmissible incriminating statements elicited from defendants during a period of unlawful detention.” 354 U.S. at page 453, 77 S.Ct. at page 1359.
in the present case there were no “incriminating statements” in the second admission. The bar against admissions after prohibited interrogation is not to penalize the police or the public for the error but to protect the rights of the accused
In this case nothing appeared that had not already been told by timely statements. Appellant seeks to draw from boxing experience, at fourteen years of age m a boys club, a conclusion of appellant s training m slugger tactics. See ocro ni 103 U.S.App.D.C. 391 258 F.2d 691, supra It is inconceivable to us that such testimony could harmlully affect appelan s rig s.
_ We^ find notning to justify a reversal of this judgment.

. 18 U.S.C.:
“Rule 5. Proceedings before the Commissioner
“(a) Appearance before the Commissioner. An officer making an arrest under a warrant issued upon a complaint or any person making an arrest without a warrant 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. When a person arrested without a warrant is brought before a commissioner or other officer, a complaint shall be filed forthwith.
“(b) Statement by the Commissioner. The commissioner shall inform the defendant of the complaint against him, of his right to retain counsel and of his right to have a preliminary examination. He shall also inform the defendant that he is not required to make a state-
ment and that any statement made by him may be used against him. The commissioner shall allow the defendant reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall admit the defendant to bail as provided in these rules.”

. Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 452, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479; Notes to the Rules of Criminal Procedure or District Courts of the United States- Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, March 1945 (GPO), p. 4.

. Exclusion of Statement Secured in Violation of Rule. No statement made by a defendant in response to interrogation by an officer or agent of the government shall be admissible in evidence against him if the interrogation occurs while the defendant is held in custody in violation of this rule.”

. Preliminary Draft, supra, p. 14.

. Upshaw v. United States, 335 U.S. 410, 413, 69 S.Ct. 170, 171, 93 L.Ed. 100.

. Upshaw v. United States, supra, 335 U.S. at page 413, 69 S.Ct. 170; Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 453, 77 S.Ct. 1356; cf. Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156, 187, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 97 L.Ed. 1522.

. Cf. McNabb v. United States, supra, 318 U.S. at page 339, 63 S.Ct. 614.

. Arclibold’s Criminal Pleadings, Evidence and Practice (33d ed.) 414.

. Cf. Haydon Wattam, 36 Crim.App.Rep. (1952) 72.

. Gach v. King, 79 Canadian Crim.Cases 221, 225.

. gee Notes to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, supra, p. 4; Second Preliminary Draft of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, Eebruary 1944 (GPO); Janus v. United States, 9 Cir., 38 F.2d 431, 437, had held the following instruction correct in a false imprisonment suit: “ * * * in such determination, you should consider tIle accessibility of a Commissioner; whether or not and when he was available for the purpose, his distance from the place, the safety with which the person arrested might be taken before him, and all other facts and circumstances then existing.”

. People v. Kelly, 404 Ill. 281, 288-289, 89 N.E.2d 27, 33. See City of Buffalo v. Neubeck, 209 App.Div. 380, 204 N.Y.S. 737, 739. Cf. People v. Lovello, 1 N.Y.2d 436, 154 N.Y.S.2d 8, 336 N.E.2d 483. See Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va.L.Rev. 315, 339. Adoption of -wording of a statuto from another jurisdiction carries with it generally previous judicial decisions. Cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 309, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1 L.Ed.2d 3356.

. “Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D. C., date 7-31-56, 11:15 p. m., Detective Office, 11th Precinct, Re: Charles Stanislas Porter, you are requested to make a statement of the facts in this case to the best of your knowledge.
“However, you are advised that you are not compelled to make a statement or not promised anything for making one and do so at your own free will. If necessary, the statement you make will be used against you in court.
“Having been so advised, are you willing to make a statement?
* * * “Yes.”
*****
“Statement: About 2:45 p. m., Tuesday, July 31, 1956, I went to my apartment located at 1107 Trenton Place Southeast, apartment 2-C. The door was unlocked. I entered and saw my wife, 48 years, in company with an unknown white man whom I learned later to be Bertram Bowers.
“I said, ‘So this is the man you have been out with all night.’
“My wife started smacking me. I smacked her and hit Bowers. I had been drinking and don’t remember where I hit him. I hit him about three times, using my fist.
“I caught hold of Bowers by the belt and dragged him from my apartment to the front sidewalk and left him lying there.
“I went back and asked my stepdaughter for my clothes.
“I then left and went to 3026 Riggs Road, Southeast, Apartment 3. This is my mother’s home. This is where I was later arrested.”
Signed “Charles Porter.” Witness “Frank Reinhardt.” Transcript of Rec- or<*’ PP- 38 — 40.

. “Q. What was said at that time? “A. I asked him why he had been arrested, only he had had a fit, this fellow Bowers, that he had come home and found him with his wife and he grabbed hold of him and hit him with his fist and knocked him down and dragged him down the steps and threw him out.” Transcript of Record, 47.

. Able members of the judiciary have sought to forge an iron rule that no statements made to police after arrest and before appearance before a magistrate or commissioner may be introduced in evidence. See dissents in Stro-*692ble v. California, 343 U.S. 181, 203, 72 S.Ct. 599, 96 L.Ed. 872, and United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65, 71, 64 S. Ct. 896, 88 L.Ed. 1140.

. Compare 390, 258 F.2d 690, supra, with No. 5 of the Judges’ Rules, Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence & Practice (33d ed.) § 682: “5. The caution to be administered to a prisoner, when he is formally cnarged, should therefore be in the following words: ‘Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence ’ ”

. Cf. In re Groban, 352 U.S. 330, 77 S.Ct. 510, 1 L.Ed.2d 376, where denial of counsel in an investigation of a fire was held constitutionally permissible by a state,

. Eed.Rules Crim.Proc., Rule 52:
“(a) Harmless Error. Any error, de-feet, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”