*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 appellant. 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 arrest 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. judge 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 began 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 had 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 scene 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 was 1360, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 and on violations of Maryland any question- and held without 5, Fed.R.Crim.P., U.S.C.A., Rule ing for one hour until the arrival of Mary on failure of to inform the Washington, C., police D. who had been land court of his confession and waiver apprehension. notified of his It is not of extradition when he was disputed opening question that the before that court at 3:30 P.M.2

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” re- 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 the 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 testified 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 police, 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 confession, 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- the 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)detention 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- before 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 immedi- [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 that 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 circumstances. 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 came 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. When 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 aspect 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 appel- 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. taking 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 desire 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. Since 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 and 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 confession 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 elicited 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 reversing 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 to 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, 93 L.Ed. 100. aging statements while are holding arrested, him than before ishe does not them ar- authorize *5 “probable him. rest Arrests without illegal. illegal

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 Appellee. 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. charge 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.