◆ SpookStack

) O-10 (Rew. 9-7-56) . re 5 Tolson Nichols Boardman Belmont Mohr Parsons Rosen Ss , he ; Ray pe yg r ae . , acteps he ic | TI ignt ttre, we ' think, Wirctr* et’ $ Not Be Shrill . (+ dling in. the Mallory case breaks down. It has been said that there is “real $¢ ts hampering effective and intelligent ger” that Congress “wil! be panicked IEW enforcement. And unless Cohgress by the shrill cries of policemen and [ects to modify the impact of the rule, Holloman yy utors” into adopting a bill to upset BAW enforcement. bor the judges, the Gandy the }Supre : upreme Court's ruling in the osecutors and the police are finding LPC Mallory case. It would be most unfor- ongress were to be panicked in the Mallory opinion far greater re- 5 ~ thieg ad rictions on police procedures than they Ache ne taentioted. the right of by anyone’s shrill cries. So let's not be found in the McNabb ‘or subsequent ublic to section from the depr shrill, Let's try to look at the facts. fidecisions, And unless Congress acts S10000 7° Fossum ie SoS OO - The essential fact is that Mallory ° Modify the impact of the rule, law 2.0) but one which sometimes s has been freed although he fs a guilty genforcement is going to be serlously 90° less weight than ‘the righ man. He committed a rape, he con- @*mpered. That view is shared by many 4)... suspected of crime. A pro tessed, physical evidence carroborating $e298es, lawyers and Congressmen, mot cing Congress and the courts is the confession was produced. Mallory @ ° mention the policemen -and prose- $° yoiancing afid reconciling bet was duly tried and convicted. The con- FE vietlon ‘vas approved by the trial judge. Another important. tact is that the a tines tpeontiicn gh they may sf It was upheld in a majority opinion by et2uery rule can be modified by Con- © the Court of Appeals. It is not correct JBTeSS tO Serve the Feal interests of jus- to say that the procedures followed by [Ce Without creating a “police state” the police in Mallory’s case were clearly Teviving the terrors of the rack. improper under the rule laid down by Mallory’s was not a coerced or false ie Supreme Court in the McNabb deci- @eNfession. A deputy coroner was called on some 15 years ago. Able and honest @. © ¢xamine him after he had con- ears another. Some fudges in the trial and appellate courts JgeS5e¢- That official found Mallory to lems which the Mallory dectastor , @id not find that the police had violated (¢ in good physical condition. And seer the police and‘cther rhe at rule, Mallory told this doctor that he had not sych as the question of inform! = In reversing the conviction the Su- romises had bee ened to. ree No syspect of his right to remain : Greme Court did not hold that any of Bion allegations influenced the Supreme | be discussed in a subsequent Nease Tele. Room he Mallory ruling. If there 1s, it ye reconciled. And it should be re ficlated. ‘The Fourth, Fifth and Siain [pout opinion. The sole basis for strtk- is! Sunday. &mendments were not involved. What FOS COW Oe release of a dungereue Yas involved was,an interpretation of fF imiral, © er’ £ Rule 5 (a) of t ederal Rules of Crim- Timinal, seems to have beens’ the delay Wash. Post and inal Procedure/as approved by t by Congress. | fan his arraignment. We do not believe Times Herald Wis distinction ts of some importance. POMStESS Intended that mere delay in Wosh. News & the question were a ‘constitutional gry ignment, hile police investi gate ash. Star Gme Congress could inot “upset” the Sided the delay is not unreasonable N. Y. Herald gourt’s decision by adopting new legis- Should invall herwise Tribune fation. The £eal question involved. a (ZOUe Serve to invalidate an otherwise Yoluntary confession. If this is correct, N. Y. Journal- Judictal interpretation of the intent of ngress, What was that intent? If gongress without succumbing to panic, American is intent has been misinterpreted, urely can revise the law to permit rea- N. Y. Mirror Pongress should enact a law making Sonable detention without sacrificing the N. ¥. Daily News Pear its real intent, even though this ighis_gf suspects or shooting holes ennaed Jould upset the Mallory ruling. dhrough the Bill of Rights. — N i Worke : Daily Worker = Rule 5 (a) requires that an arrested The Worker Person be arraigned “without unneces- RE, - 9 New Leader ry delay.” In speaking for the court ~ 6 ew tea the Mallory case, Justice Frankfurter aid: “The requirement of Rule 5 (a} is art of the procedure devised by Con- ess for safeguarding individual rights ithout hampering (italles supplied) ar ar intelligent law enforce- ent, a, b2-27 ses: JOT RECORDED ote 4G FEB 12 1958 2, . 5 FEB 12 1$5¢ a —_