# Eddie M. Harrison v. United States of America, Orson G. White v. United States of America, Joseph R. Sampson v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · December 7, 1965 · 359 F.2d 214

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9451581

## Case

- **Full name:** Eddie M. HARRISON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee; Orson G. WHITE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee; Joseph R. SAMPSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** December 7, 1965
- **Citations:** 359 F.2d 214; 123 U.S. App. D.C. 230; 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3740
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Miller
- **Judges:** Washington, Danaher, Burger, Tamm, Miller
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9451581

## Opinion text

WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I join in Parts I and II of Judge Danaher’s opinion and in his treatment of the Harling point urged on behalf of the appellant Harrison. There is room for doubt, I think, whether the confessions to the police at headquarters should have been excluded on Mallory grounds; but there is no doubt that under the holding of the second Killough case, 1 the appellants’ statements to the jail classification officers should not have been received in evidence.
I think it is a travesty on justice to reverse the convictions of these three murderers. Reversal is required, however, by the second Killough case which is controlling authority although it is, in my view, grossly wrong. So, I very reluctantly concur in the ultimate result.
WASHINGTON, Senior Circuit Judge:
I concur in the result. I would add that in my view Harrison’s confessions are barred by our decison in Harling v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 174 , 295 F.2d 161 (en banc, 1961). Harrison was 17 years old when the present offense was committed, and 18 at the time of his interrogation at the jail. He was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court with respect to that offense. See D.C.Code § 11-907(1) (b) (1961). 1 Waiver of jurisdiction by the Juvenile Court occurred later. But at the time of the interrogation he was subject to the rule in Harling , and his confession was barred by that rule.
. Killough v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 10 , 336 F.2d 929 (1964), decided by Judges Washington and Wright, with Judge Danaher dissenting.
. “§ 11-907. Jurisdiction — Original and exclusive.
“1. Children. — Except as herein otherwise provided, the [Juvenile] court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all eases and in proceedings:
* # * * *
“(b) Concerning any person under 21 years of age charged with having violated any law, or violated any ordinance or regulation of the District of Columbia, prior to having become 18 years of age, subject to appropriate statutes of limitation.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9451581. Public record. Not legal advice.