explaining that the defendant denied any knowledge of the murder until he was advised that he matched the description of the assailant; this development, rather than any exploitation of an illegal arrest, prompted the defendant’s confession
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the defendant denied any knowledge of the murder until he was advised that he matched the description of the assailant; this development, rather than any exploitation of an illegal arrest, prompted the defendant’s confession
- holding that the defendant’s confession was voluntary and free of any element of coercion where, inter alia, the confession occurred four hours after the arrest
- defendant’s confession admissible after his illegal arrest because it was prompted by notification that he matched police description of assailant rather than by exploitation of his illegal arrest
- Issues likely to arise again on retrial addressed to promote the efficient administration of justice.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*166 ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I join Part IV of Mr. Chief Justice Eagen’s opinion granting appellant a new trial. I therefore find it unnecessary to reach any of the other issues raised.
MANDERINO, J., joins in this concurring opinion.