◆ SpookStack

0-19 (Rey. 10-29-57) - y ff _- “Help! Help!” A Solomon would stagger away, talking to himself and shaking his head, ’ ff called upon to explain what the Mal- lory rule means in the Nation’s Capital . . it has been almost a year since the ; Supreme Court handed down its unan- imous decision in the Mallory case—a ruling which threw out the confession of a convicted rapist and resulted in his - release. Mallory had been held by the police for 7144 hours. The reason for the reversal was that he had not been ~ arraigned “without unnecessary delay” as required by Federal Rule 5 (a).- vi We azhought from .the beginning ee suet ! et ye | that the’Supreme Court's decision was . unreasonable @ circumstances of ; the Mallory case and that its meaning | was unclear. Others disagreed, con- tending that the opinion was both proper and its meaning clear. Now, almost a year later, comes the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals in the case of John Trilling, ¢ an eager-beaver safecracker. This ap- — pellate court is composed of nine able and conscientious judges. Yet they are in hopeless disagreement with respect to the meaning of the Mallory rule as applied to the Trilling case. z The division among the judges is 4 cited here, not in any needling spirit, but to illustrate the massive confusion which prevails. Judge Danaher wrote what becomes the opinion of the court, © affirming Trilling’s convictlon on one count in three indictments. Trilling, in three trials, had been found guilty , under all of the indictments. Judge Danaher was joined in full only by ' Judge Burger, and we will return to Judge Burger later. Judge Bazelon, joined by Chief Judgc Edgerton, would have thrown out all confessions and reversed the one conviction. Judges Washington and Fahy came to this same conclusion, but, perhaps signifi- cantly, they did not Join in Judge Bazelon's free-wheeling opinion. Judge Prettyman was joined by Judges Milier .and Bastian. He agreed with Judge Danaher as to the'correctness of the one conviction, thus supplying a majority of the court on this point. But Judges Prettyman, Miller and Bastian thought that all of the confessions were valid and that all of the convictions should have been affirmed. —— a? - ~~ _——_eee eer | pected tp know which end 1 up? = '. - Let's get back to Judge Burger. Je m brief statement be mid he reluctantly with Judge Danaher because’ he thought he was “compelled” to do so by the Mallory ruling. He would have preferred to join Judge Prettyman be- cause what he said “makes sense and ought to be the law.” Then Judge Bur- ger sald this: “Rule 5 (a) should be re- examined by the rule-making process or by Congress.” - To this we say “Amen!” although we believe actlon by Congress 1s prefer- able. This community, in which’ the Mallory rule hits with full and crippling impact, is in desperate need of help. That help can best come through enact- ment of pending legislation which pro- vides that mere delay in arraignment shal] not serve to invalidate voluntary ‘ confessions. We earnestly hope the de cision in the Trilling case will furnis' the extra push needed to get the b ough Congress. Holloman — Gandy % uf ler Wash. Post and — Times Herald Wash. News Wash. Star Ark DUST S. a ‘NOT RECORDED . ‘ane APR 29 1958 _ — ——— N. Y. Herald —— Tribune N. Y. Journal-W American N. Y. Mirror N. Y. Daily News N. Y. Times Daily Worker __ The Worker New Leader Date