Court Opinion

ID: 9443282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:16:42.692374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:26.326714
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
The record indicates that the committing magistrate was not available until 10 :00 a. m.1 on the morning following the accused’s arrest. That was also the time2 at which the police officers started to question the accused. He immediately denied knowledge of the crime, whereupon he was shown the telltale overcoat button and told that it would be submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for analysis. It was at that point that he confessed, although the statement of confession was not reduced to writing until 11:00 a. m.3 Under these circumstances, I do not think the confession was made either during or because of “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. United States v. Mitchell, 1944, 322 U.S. 65, 64 S.Ct. 896, 88 L.Ed. 1140; Haines v. United States, 9 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 546, certiorari denied, 1951, 342 U.S. 888, 72 S.Ct. 172; United States v. Leviton, 2 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 848.

. J.A., p. 45. Although appellant contends he should have been taken before a committing magistrate at 9:00 a.m., there is no showing that as a practical matter other, committing magistrates were available before 10:00 a.m., at which time the regular office hours of committing magistrates in the District of Columbia begin. See discussion in United States v. Leviton, 2 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 848, 854, and cases cited therein.

. J.A., p. 40.

. Ibid.