*1 the Commis- prevail before If sion, it does petition for re- then Texas Gas questions raise view and presented. prematurely are now think petition jurisdiction, we lack Since
for review will be
Dismissed. METOYER, Appellant,
J. G. America,
UNITED STATES Appellee.
No. 13970. Appeals Court of
United States of Columbia Circuit. District
Argued Sept. 26, 1957.
Decided Nov. Washing- Jr., Lawson, Belford V. Mr. (appointed by
ton, D. C. the District Marjorie appellаnt. Court), Miss for McKenzie, Washington, C.,D. also en- appearance appellant. an for tered Belcher, Atty., Asst. Carl U. S. Mr. W. Gasch, appellee. Messrs. Oliver U. S. Carroll, Atty., and Lewis Asst. U. S. appearances ap- Atty., also entered pellee. EDGERTON, Judge, Chief
Before
BURGER,
PRETTYMAN
Judges.
*2
31
Judge.
Metoyer’s
BURGER,
in
аrrest had been issued
Washington
to the
but was not delivered
by
on a motion
comes to us
This case
P.M.,
officers
at
until about 3:15 or 3:30
by the
appellant
motion
and a
to reverse
At
time it was
on him.
served
motions
Both
United States to affirm.
arraigned
3:30 P.M. he was
undisputed
rest on
facts.
judgе
Montgom-
the Circuit Court
Metoyer
was convicted
In June
ery County, Maryland
Rockville, was
at
degree
jury
murder
trial of second
rights by
judge
advised of his
and
duly
Court
and
The District
sentenced.
extradition to the
District
Columbia
granted
appeal
in forma
leave to
was ordered.
transcript
pauperis.
and a
record
The
Metoyer now
not un-
contends he did
printed, in
filed,
but not
trial are
waiving
derstand that he was
extradition
this court.
or what constituted extradition. After
Metoyer
companions
and two
had been
arraignment hearing
Rockville,
at
drinking
bеgan
quarrel
and
or brawl.
Maryland,
guided
he
the District of Co-
College
Students of Gallaudet
undertook
lumbia
to his home at about 4:30'
stop
brawling
general
and in a
entering
P.M., consented to their
and
Metoyer, according
scuffle
confes
pistol
delivered to them the
he hаd used.
testimony
trial,
sion and his
drew a
He was then taken to downtown Wash-
pistol
shot,
any person but,
as
at
ington
again arraigned
P.M.
at 5:30
thought,
frighten
into
air to
On trial his confession was admitted
brawling.1
others and terminate the
His
objection
judge
over
and the trial
testimony is that he left the sсene not
knowing one of the Gallaudet students
charged
disregard
jury
con-
fession if
untary.
was not vol-
believed it
by
was struck
bullet
that he died
from the wound some hours later.
Metoyer
Mallory
relies on
v. United
following day
noon,
at 12:00
States, 1957,
354 U.S.
77 S.Ct.
Metoyer
picked up by police
wаs
1360,
Washington
sergeant
was whether
he, Metoyer,
urges
Appellant
was
man
who fired the
not that
the confes-
gun
brawling. Metoyer
product
prolonged
once
sion is a
detention
said he was the man
speed”
rе- but that the “undue
which attend-
lated all
ing
circumstances
of the shoot-
ed the
actions
from 1:00-
P.M.,
Washington
which had been
witnessed
three
when the
ar-
persons present
or four
jail Maryland,
the scene.
rived at the
until the-
Eyewitnesses
arraignment
who had been called to thе
at 3:30 P.M. in Rockville-
Metoyer
Washington,
station identified
and con-
and at 5:30
violated his.
story.
rights.
urges
firmed his
Within 20 or 25 min-
also
He
failure-
voluntary statement,
utes after
first
at 1:00 P.M. to advise him of
rights
preparation of written
was
statement
his constitutional
before he volun-
approximately
and at
commenced
2:15
his oral confession and
teered
before he
signed
Metoyer
signed
the statement which
P.M.
the written statement violated his-
prefaced
States,,
with a
was
recital that it could
under
against
supra.
used
him.
warrant
gun
point
Metoyer signed
Eyewitnesses tеstified the
1.
was
a waiver
extradition
straight ahead,
permission
into
the air or
to enter and
ed
search his
ground.
residence,
well
as the confession
be-
1:20 IhM. and about 3:30
tween
P.MJ
present
Metoyer’s
almost
confronted
Essentially,
the moment he was
Washington policе,
admittedly'prompt
and concluded
complaint
is that
shooting
stenographer
about 1:20. The
called
spontaneous admission
period
P.M.
from 1:20 to 2:15
“frighten”
kill
gun
not to
*3
steps
sequence of was consumed in the usual
of
by
a swift
attended
such
taking
it,
emotionally
confessiоn, typing
un
down the
he became
events that
settled,
checking
Every
signing
of
and
it
it.
uninformed
was unaware
ac-
minute from 1:00 to 2:15 is thus
right
and because
silent
remain
to
by careful, painstaking,
counted for
is inadmissible.
his confession
of this
scrupulously proper police work.3
ac-
thе
how
to conceive
difficult
It is
Washington police
sat-
other
Until the
were
police
have been
could
of
tions
the
sought,
Metoyer
of
isfied that
the man
hour
was
they
first
The
were.
what
than
any
by
ques- he should
been either extradited
not have
attended
was not
(cid:127)dеtention
Maryland
Maryland from
or
either there
whatever,
tioning
the
since
Metoyer
Washington.
holding
inor
simply
were
authorities
the
drinking companions for
two
and his
colleague
dissenting opinion of our
The
within
"Washingtonpolice. Their arrival
something
perfectly
sees
unfair in the
receiving
of
notice
one hour
of the
correct and understandable desire
police
rea-
could
prompt as
aswas
(cid:127)detention
to
to reduce
oral confession
the
arrival
expected. On
sonably be
writing
arraignment and ex-
befоre the
obligation was
first
Washington officer’s
hearing
Maryland court.
tradition
in the
Metoyer
was
whether
to determine
“Circumstances
The
case states:
inquiry,
sought
first
they
and the
man
delay
may justify
arrest
a brief
between
than
rather
identification
to
interrogation
directed
arraignment,
instance,
as
where
described
was
general
story
is
accused
volunteered
thus:
through
susceptible
quick
verification
delay
got
p.
parties.
1 m.
not be
at
But
must
I first
there
third
“When
give opportunity for the
to the three
of a nature to
introduced
was
time,
(Emphasis
I immеdi-
[suspects],
that
extraction of a confession.”
Metoy-
added.)
“about
defendant
dissent states that
ately
The
to
talked
delay
de-
was the
due to the
him if he
hour of the
was
er,
asked
an
I
get
gun
partic-
police
a written confes-
to
in this
of the
sire
fired the
man thаt
added.).
fair defi-
(Emphasis
he was.”
case,
that
he said
sion.”
ular
context,
“delay,”
as used
nition
R. 352.
impede
postpone,
“put-off,
to
is to
question
not
iden-
The answer
progress of.”
sought
Metoyer as the man
tified
but
shooting.
an admission of the
was itself
Implicit
definition—and
then the
took the further
Even
some
that
the inference
the dissent —is
thing
seeking
precaution of
corroboration
done was
have
having eye
identify
witnesses on hand to
speed under the
done with reasonable
suggest
“delay”
there was
him. To
Concretely then, the dis
circumstаnces.
arraignment
contrary
appellant’s
arguing
—
were dere
sent
argument
objects
in which he
to the
duty
took 50 to
because
lict in some
arraignment
speed
without the
of the
—is
dictate, type, allow a read
minutes to
55
ing
slightest
on this record.
warrant
signing
in
a confession
volving fairly complex
plain
situation.3a
fact
that the oral
record makes
goes
objection
began
real thrust of the
about 1:00 o’clock—
Thus
confession
arriving
Maryland by
police,
remembered that
over to
also be
It should
Maryland
Washing-
P.M.
about 3:30
cаme to
from
prepared.
a warrant was
This
ton
applied
noon,
time between 1:00 and 2:15
for' at
when
of the
was
3a. Some
waiyant
Washington
with witnesses
devoted to interviews
first
learned
was
Metoyer.
being held,
Metoyer
identified
and was sent
who
(a concept
made,
rendering
is to be admissible
very
confession
to the
reject)
emphatically
basis
upon
we see no
is an attack
This
form.
to written
challenge
any
the Dis-
to the action of
concept
law which
a fundamental
encouraged
im-
action is
always
trict Court. Whеn
favored
has
writing
proper
it deserves condemnation
freely expressed declarations
impor-
scrupulously with the
where it conforms
ofbe
which are known to
crucial
Congress
litigation
courts
and the
commands
minimize
tance in order
Delay
should be commended.
it
disputes
just
said.
what
time;
passage of
does not mean mere
nowas
error
We hold that there
during
passage
of time
means
of his
in the admission of the evidence
done is
and could
which should
This
oral and written statements.
*4
done.4
light
particularly
trial
in
so
aspеct
As to the second
there is not the
charge
judge’s precautionary
consider
to
slightest
any
of
“extraction”
intimation
of the confession.
the voluntariness
appellant
not
element and indeed
does
de-
is therefore
The motion to reverse
suggest
аppel-
of
even
this. The essence
granted;
affirm is
nied and the motion to
complaint
speed
is
the
lant’s
that the
of
judgment
is
District Court
the
process-
police action stilled his reflective
therefore
es
led him
truth.5
to tell the
Affirmed.
arraign
police
compelled
If
all
are
to
any
potential suspects
questioning
before
Judge (dissent-
EDGERTON, Chief
of them we shall have used the artificial
ing).
superficial
technicalities con-
niceties
agree
I
oral confession was
that the
genuine
cerning our liberties to reduce
one
I think the written
admissible but
important
absurdity
to
—and was not.
Every
dangerous absurdity at
that.
got
the defendant’s
After
right
has
to
that
citizen
a
insist
gun,
had fired a
oral confession that he
they
pertinent
make
and definitive
some
him
hours without
held
over two
may
inquiry
on a
he
before
magistrate.
tаking
There
him
a
before
charge,
criminal
if it is later
even
delay;
fact,
in
no excuse for this
him
abandoned inflicts on
a serious
plain
pretty
record makes it
about
stigma.
delay was due to the
an hour of the
While we
action cor-
think the
get
a
con
to
written
desirе of
compliance
rect
in
law
full
with the
the written con
It follows that
fession.
every
every stage,
respect
in
have been excluded. Mal
fession
merged
prior
are
into
events
to trial
States,
449,
lory
354
77
United
U.S.
v.
Metoyer’s
open
full confession in
court
1356, 1
oral
L.Ed.2d 1479. Sincе the
S.Ct.
presence
jury
of
and in re-
admitted,
rightly
is
it
confession
possible
sponse
questions put
to
him
his
to
that the erroneous admission
significant
own
counsel. No
element
prejudicial. But
was not
the written one
by Metoyer
was denied
confession
prejudicial,
have
аnd the
been
it
contrary,
trial. On
he testified
to
benefit of the
defendant
entitled
substance as he had confessed.
trial,
repudiated parts
doubt. At the
confession,
gov
we were
a
the written
Unless
to innovate
credibility
any per
attacked
doctrine
son,
no cоnfession of
ernment
voluntarily
pointing
out conflicts between
however
plainly
of the law courts ac
a
In other areas
4. Detention
confession
does
5.
similarly
spontaneous
prompt,
admissibility.
affect
United States
cord
not
its
high degree
reliability
1944,
65,
Mitchell,
64
a
322 U.S.
S.Ct.
utterances
precisely
896,
are
when
made
88
See also 43 Va.L.
because
L.Ed. 1140.
calculated,
processes
(1957).
reflective
arc stilled.
915
Rev.
Murphy
Ball,
Parts Co. v.
Cf.
Auto
101
,
U.S.App.D.C
F.2d
249
508.
. —
testimony. What,
anything,
incriminating
if
he would render inadmissible
state-
during
con-
have said at
trial if the written
ments еlicited
from defendants
a
introduced,
period
we can-
fession had
been
unlawful detention.”
States, supra,
page
v.
453,
not know.
United
U.S.
page
77 S.Ct.
McNabb
suggest
police should be
doI
Again
1948,
case was
decided in 1943.
arraign
suspects
compelled
before
all
rеversing
a conviction this court had
willing
suspect is
questioning
If a
them.
affirmed,
expressly
Supreme
Court
and is not under arrest
to talk
adhered to the “rule that a confession is
length.
may question
Whether
him at
illegal
during
if made
inadmissible
de-
they may
at the
question him not
carry
tention due tо failure
during
arrest,
a short
but also
moment
committing magis-
prisoner
magistrate,
committing
journey to a
* *
Upshaw
trate
not now decide.
need
States,
335 U.S.
69 S.Ct.
suspect
likely
more
make dam-
172,
cause” are It is also for to hold a man in own cus- their tody in order to conduct “definitive arraigning inquiry” him instead committing magis- BROWN, Appellant, Alvan Jesse trate. v. Only June, reversing last a convic- affirmed, tion this Supreme court had America, UNITED STATES of police may Appelleе. Court said: “The not arrest upon suspicion mere ‘prob- on No. 13874. cause.’ step able pro- next in the Appeals United States Court of ceeding arraign person the arrested District of Columbia Circuit. judicial before a possible quickly officer as Argued 18, Nov. may so be advised of his 27, 1957. probable and so that the Decided Nov. issue cause determined. * ** It the function of the arrest, were, large as it interrogating process to use an (appointed Richard Hildreth Mr. headquarters in order to determine Court), C., Washington, ap- D. chаrge whom before a com- pellant. * * mitting magistrate Stirling, Mr. E. Tillman Asst. U. S. States, supra, 354 U.S. at Gasch, Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver 454, pages 456, pages 1359, 77 S.Ct. at Atty., and U. S. Lewis Carroll and Ar- opinion 1360. The decision and were Attys., McLaughlin, thur J. Asst. S.U. pointed unanimous. The Court out that brief, appellee. were States, McNabb United U.S. S.Ct. 87 L.Ed. Judge Edgerton, Before Chief “held had detention of de- Judges. Bazelon Bastían, beyond the fendants time when a com- PER CURIAM. mitting magistrate readily acces- appeal This is from a conviction under constituted ‘willful sible disobedience of narcotic We find laws. no error af- adequately In order law.’ to enforce the rights. fecting substantial congressional requirement prompt arraignment, necessary it was deemed Affirmed.