holding that confessions obtained in violation of congressional requirement to promptly present defendant to court must be excluded, even though Congress had not explicitly forbidden the admission of *136 such confessions
How later courts described this case
- holding that confessions obtained in violation of congressional requirement to promptly present defendant to court must be excluded, even though Congress had not explicitly forbidden the admission of *136 such confessions
- declining to address the eonstitu-tional issue before the Court, the Court invoked its supervisory powers to create an exclusionary remedy for a violation of the right to a speedy arraignment; in so declining, the Court reasoned that “the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in federal criminal trials have not been restricted to those derived solely from the Constitution.”
- explaining that suppression, although not constitutionally required, was motivated by “considerations of justice not limited to the strict canons of evidentiary relevance”
- invoking suppression for violation of statutory right intended to ward against “all the evil implications of secret interrogation,” a concern rooted in the Fifth Amendment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by Abraham Thomas v. Colonel James W. Davis, Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 249 F.2d 232 (1957)
“We reject petitioners’ contentions that the rule of McNabb v. United States, 1943, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, renders the confessions inadmissible and requires the civil courts to hold that the courts-martial were void.
Declined to follow by People v. Fournier Sampedro, 77 P.R. 208 (1954)
In view of the foregoing, we refuse to adopt in this jurisdiction the McNabb rule that even if a confession is voluntary it is inadmissible in evidence solely because it was made during illegal detention.
Declined to follow by United States v. Carignan, 342 U.S. 36 (1951)
We decline to extend the McNabb fixed ru.le of exclusion to statements to police or wardens concerning other crimes while prisoners are legally in detention on criminal charges.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Eugene Smith v. United States, 254 F.2d 751 (1958)
The rule of McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, upon which the appellant relies is inapplicable to the case at bar.
Distinguished by Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)
We reject petitioners’ contentions that the rule of McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332 (1943), renders the confessions inadmissible and requires the civil courts to hold that the courts-martial were void.
Distinguished by United States v. Walker, 197 F.2d 287 (1952)
The rule of McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, upon which the appellant relies is inapplicable to the case at bar.
Distinguished by Newman v. United States, 184 F.2d 275 (1951)
McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, is inapplicable.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Reed,
dissenting:
I find myself unable to agree with the opinion of the Court in this case. An officer of the United States was killed' while in the performance of his duties. From the circumstances detailed in the Court’s opinion, there was obvious reason to suspect that the petitioners here were implicated in firing the fatal shot from the dark. The arrests followed. As the guilty parties were known only to the McNabbs who took part in the assault at the bury *348 ing ground, it was natural and proper that the officers would question them as to their actions. 1
The cases just cited show that statements made while under interrogation may be used at a trial if it may fairly be said that the information was given voluntarily. A frank and free confession of crime by the culprit affords testimony of the highest credibility and of a character which may be verified easily. Equally frank responses to officers by innocent people arrested under misapprehension give the best basis for prompt discharge from custody. The realization of the convincing quality of a confession tempts officials to press suspects unduly for such statements. To guard accused persons against the danger of being forced to confess, the law admits confessions of guilt only when they are voluntarily made. While the connotation of voluntary is indefinite, it affords an understandable label under which can be readily classified the various acts of terrorism, promises, trickery and threats which have led this and other courts to refuse admission as evidence to confessions. 2 The cases cited in the Court’s opinion show the broad coverage of this rule of law. Through it those coerced into confession have found a ready defense from injustice.
Were the Court today saying merely that in its judgment the confessions of the McNabbs were not voluntary, there would be no occasion for this single protest. A notation of dissent would suffice. The opinion, however, does more. Involuntary confessions are not constitu *349 tionally admissible because violative of the provision of self-mcrimination in the Bill of Rights. Now the Court leaves undecided whether the present confessions are voluntary or involuntary and declares that the confessions must be excluded because in addition to questioning the petitioners, the arresting officers failed promptly to take them before a committing magistrate. The Court finds a basis for the declaration of this new rule of evidence in its supervisory authority over the administration of criminal justice. I question whether this offers to the trial courts and the peace officers a rule of admissibility as clear as the test of the voluntary character of the confession. I am opposed to broadening the possibilities of defendants escaping punishment by these more rigorous technical requirements in the administration of justice. If these confessions are otherwise voluntary, civilized standards, in my opinion, are not advanced by setting aside these judgments because of acts of omission which are not shown to have tended toward coercing the admissions.
Our police officers occasionally overstep legal bounds. This record does not show when the petitioners were taken before a committing magistrate. No point was made of the failure to commit by defendant or counsel. No opportunity was given to the officers to explain. Objection to the introduction of the confessions was made only on the ground that they were obtained through coercion. This was determined against the accused both by the court, when it appraised the fact as to the voluntary character of the confessions preliminarily to determining the legal question of their admissibility, and by the jury. The court saw and heard witnesses for the prosecution and the defense. The defendants did not take the stand before the jury. The uncontradicted evidence does not require a different conclusion. The officers of the Alcohol Tax Unit should not be disciplined by overturning this conviction.
Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 584 ; Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U. S. 51, 55 ; Pierce v. United States, 160 U. S. 355 ; Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 623 ; cf. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U. S. 149, 157 .
“In short, the true test of admissibility is that the confession is made freely, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement of any sort.” Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 623 ; Lisenba v. Calif ornia, 314 U. S. 219, 239 .