Court Opinion

ID: 9644363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:54:01.175234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:12.281860
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
In my concurrence I wish to point out that the document signed by appellant is not the only evidence received in the case which comes under the ban of McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed.-.
The officers who kept guard over the appellant during his restraint engaged him in running conversation, and these officers testified to the admissions made during *882■ those conversations. In fact the typewritten-signed document termed the confession is but a narrative form of these very admissions. It is apparent that such conversations are the very source of the confession and therefore must be as objectionable as the confession itself. This is not to be confused with admissions made by accused persons at the time of legal arrest or with admissions or confessions made thereafter in the absence of coercion.
In reference to the decisions in McNabb v. United States, supra, and Anderson v. United States, 124 F.2d 58, mentioned in the main opinion, I think it should be stated that the trial court in each of these- cases submitted the question of coercion in the procurement of the confession to the jury upon all of the evidence relative to that issue.