◆ SpookStack

4 4 a q 1 F: t cy ‘ which she Hved. ‘there to use the washing She hed one and his otal confession, During the intertm the police questioned others believed involved. Mallory was questioned by the police for approdmately two hours. ‘The jury considered his confession free and voluntary. He never disputed this. The victim could not identife her assailant, Because of the delay between arrest and arraignment the ‘ol- lowing morning, Mallory’a con- fession was ruled inadmissible, Without the confession, the Gov- ernment lacked sufficient evidence .to seek a conviction and Maiiory was released. The Mallory decision requires the exclusion from evidence of confessions made by persons un- der arrest unless there was com- pliance by the police with Rule S(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which rer quires arraignment of arrested persons “without Unnecessary delay.” Prior | to the Mallory case the 1. khan Thdetriat am annfarelana saw es] we 270d Wk Wd Dre permitted the jury to give to con- fessions such weight as ft felt was merited, provided first the trial judge made a determination that there was evidence that such a confession was voluntary. The Basic Test Voluntariness is the test for ad- mission or rejection of confessions in most of the States. Confessions shown to be voluntary are trust- worthy. Under the old rule delay between arrest and arraignment did not necessarily vitiate a con- fession unless the delay was 50 protracted that it could be said the delay produced the confession, in which event the confession might be regarded aa involun- tary and inadmissible. In four Instances the court sald the basis of its ruling was an in- terpretation of the intent of Con- gress in authorizing Rule 5 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Pro- cedure, It would therefore appear the decision rests in an safrea wherein Congress may legislate if it feels that remedial legislation is fustified and in the public in- terest. The most significant sentence in the Mallory decision, to me, is the sentence found at the bottom of page 4 of the Court's opinion: "The requirement of Rule 5 (a) is part of the procedure devised by Con- aress for safeguarding individual rights without hampering effective and in- telligent law enforcement.” This aentence states the age-old rights to be balanced are @~ one ‘hand those of the ssetiaed,,_ ard J oe ee from‘ Balance le Vitel we es Balance must be near criminal violence by tha . TeiKC iH i most effective. law enforcement ‘fesston evidence on which we'y possible, forced to rely had been secured If too Much emphasis is given contrary to meee os. Hie fto the efficiency of law enforce- Mallory case. a ment, the rights of the accused may be impaired. Similarly, if we ‘eoncern oursalves only with safe- guarding the defendant's rights, we shal] encourage and allow to, go unpunished the criminal abuse nt law-abiding sitigens, Balance Tnust be maintained if we'are to have equal justice under law. What rights are involved? First, there are the rights of persons accu of crime. It is our duty an responsibility as law enforcement officers to de fever alert to Protect | the rights of the accused. Second, it is at least equally important for us to consider the J of the law-abiding citizens who rely upon us for protection from the criminal. Those who live and work and visit in the District of Columbia and who use the streets during the day and night have the right to effective and intelligent police protection. AIn = A anntand th aft Mannion aNW OG Wout TODO Wie pL opuG here in the District are entitled to less effective galice protection than persons living in New York, Memphis or Cincinnatl. Third, we should consider the rights at the innocent person who rae weit { has been accused of crime. As- sume that such a person has been arrested on probable cause but that the police in their own minds. question the identification by the witness. Perhaps they are’ im- pressed by the individual's protes- tation of innocence. They should haye an opportunity to check further intd the case before stig- matizing the individual with a criminal charge and an arraign- ment, = Fourth, thare is tha hat ee. wade UK A [ situation. of the innocent victim, Some of these innocent victims of rapes and yoke robberies are literally afraid te open the doors of their homes or apartments to & stranger. They are afrald to walk the streets alone. We should not forget these people in our concern with the rights of the accused, . Legislation Is Needed Experience under the .MaHory rule indicates to me the degir- ability of remedial legislation. In most oases brought to our attention, by the police there is ample evidence beside confession evidence. In some cases, however, the Mallory rule appear: to hamper effective and intelligent law enforcement—murders, rapes, and yoke robberies, eerie . wd éienst a Ee. Trial judges difter na to terpretatioc ha be given lory decision, Some have giv 8 a1 - @ Liberal interpretation. They have not regarded themselves a2 bound by what they consider dicta. Others equally experienced have - given the case a strict interpreta- - _ tion and have rejected confessions cases involved brutal yoke rob- beries. Victims | haverdificulty ane detstanding why such ¢fimes g¢6 unpunished. Mr. Justice Cardozo's admonition should be recalled: ... Justice, though due the ac- cused, is due the accuser aiso.” Three Important Reversals On appeal, three important mur- der cases have been reversed be- cause of the use of confessions secured contrary to the interpre- tation of the Mallory cage. ew Watson, the ¢ confessed murderer UL tel, cannot be retried ‘tor this murder. : @ Carter, the confessed murderer of a i4-year-old girl, cannot be retried because of the restrictions of this doctrine. His confessinn. completely voluntary and trust worthy, has never been repudiated by him. Orally he confessed about four hours after his arrest, @ Starr was convicted of the sec« ond degree murder of his wife. There Was ampie eyewitness iesti- mony, but among other defenses Starr pleaded insanity. He had given the police a statement in which he denied stabbing his wife. The statement seemed to be trust- worthy evidence of his capacity and understanding at the time of the incident in question. The re- »viewing court, however, reversed | the conviction on the authority of the Mallory case because it felt that the introduction of auch an. exculpatory statement waa preji- dictal to Starr's defense of in- sanity. A jfew days ago our Court of Appeals denied a motion to remand in the Milton Mallory case, This defendant fs a nephew of Andrew Mallory and had been convicted of the charge of carnal knowledge of an 8-year-old girl, ‘The defense moved to remand the case for a new trial because of the delay between arrest and arraignment, The court’s denial of this motion was predicated largely upon speclal and unusual facts. Milton Mallory was so intoxicated . bi - ore eee