James W. Killough v. United States
336 F.2d 929
D.C. Cir.
1964
Check Treatment

*1 KILLOUGH, Appellant, W. James America,

UNITED STATES Appellee. No. 17960. Appeals States Court of Columbia Circuit. District Argued Jan. Decided June Washington, Bryant,

Mr. William B. C., appellant. D. Messerman, Mr. A. Asst. U. S'. Gerald

Atty., C. David with whom Messrs. Duncan, Acheson, Atty., T. U. S. Charles Principal Atty., Frank Asst. U. S. Q. Nebeker, Atty., Asst. U. S. brief, appellee. Before Danaher Washington, Judges. Wright, Circuit Judge. WASHINGTON, Circuit 114 U.S.

App.D.C. 305, majority en banc held of this court illegally, procured police officer 5(a), inad violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. confessions oral and written missible Killough, to admit it was error confession second orally at the officer made the same it was Jail because District Columbia first confessions. “the fruit” said, alia, inter 246: 315 F.2d at “ * * * for our basis was the is that previous confessions result of the *2 invalidly or his could and counsel cross-examine obtained which were * * n concededly witnesses; prosecution’s *. and that he inadmissible was_ to a ob- entitled continuance to order X- -x- * -» Killough “ un- tain counsel. said he was * * * opinion excludes Our by possible representation decided about only is to a viola- due evidence by proceedings and counsel were duty un- by police of their tion parties a sent both until continued 5(a). viola- Absent such der Rule date, days away. named about 20 Pend- opin- relationship our tion and such ing Killough hearing, was ordered interrogation.” precludes no ion committed without bail to D. C. Jail pursuant to trial held his second On degree charge on the of first murder.2 appellant remand, the and our reversal following morning appear- On the by jury again of the a was convicted Commissioner, ance before U. S. manslaughter was sentenced and crime Killough brought by was a officer Jail by a term Court to serve visiting from the eellblock to the room years. appeals, assert- five to He fifteen Jail, “Rotunda,” called the and ing put before to it was error at a seated with a table Classification incriminating jury statement (1) Intern an Intern interview. The gave employee at he to civilian years age graduate was 26 and stu- (2) Jail, and of Columbia District working Georgetown University dent at witnesses, by provided certain evidence degree Philosophy for the of Doctor of staff, re- including and Coroner history. His duties at were the Jail evidently body, lating believed to a dead per to in- interview for 15 hours week appel- jury of the to be mates Jail. For this he received wife, of the lant’s former the victim' and room and a board few incidentals manslaughter. laundry, shoeshines, such as etc. Such I. procedure interviews were routine and respect were in- present with conducted with to all concerned not Questions pursuant law- mates. police, to a were asked a confession made form, page to an person agent, inves- interview or ato enforcement designed give which was to information tigating concerns The case crime. respect with or statement, close relatives friends not evidence introduced purposes inmates for of mail and trial, uni- to a made charged In visits. versity working the case of graduate part- inmates student, felonies, questions with further as time a “Classification Intern” reflecting asked with a in- view Jail, fol- under the District Columbia employment, past military, mate’s lowing circumstances: prison records, and the inmate’s version On October charged, for which he offense brought Commis- a United States before give it, purposes if he wished to degree charged mur- with first sioner and classifying placing him before Commissioner der. Both the treating him in- after trial. The Deputy at that advised Clerk time on the mate’s answers were recorded any required to make he was not form the Intern. statement; he him; The Intern who could be used did and was dressed in civilian counsel clothes he was entitled retain hearing identify Killough. preliminary He himself to he have a Youngdahl morning, meet- next ings, probably and at one these 1. See the facts stated Killough, second one at United States > Jail, requested (D.D.C.1961). friend to secure attorney. Killough spoke before be- friend ing again on the taken the Jail and sign identify do him- when so. Intern instructed asked had not been ques- so practice to do said answered and was his self response willingly cooperatively, tions al- were asked. unless he though appeared specific question could and dis- stated nervous *3 Killough point asked At his turbed. one he stated that not whether remember “getting upset.” identity. him stomach was He had before Other about his felony being for classification Form Jail Classification interviews the Killough proceeded cases, ask to ducted other tables in and the Rotunda simultaneously. suggested by to questions form and the Killough’s The it. answers record Following hearing pursuant a to held that, he reached testified when Intern Killough’s suppress motion In- to the relating part the offense with to testimony containing tern’s form and the Killough charged, stated which Killough’s signed confession, charged Killough first to “You’re Court, opinion reported in an degree you me care to tell murder. Do ruled that evi- Killough about it or make a statement?” dence was admissible.3 It found that gave an replied and so that he would do Killough’s statement to the Classification incriminating of manner account Intern was not and coerced was volun- In- death. The which his wife met her tary; independent that it was Kil- of down ver- answer tern wrote lough’s illegally procured first confession him. to batim and read it back police, thereof, to the was not the fruit form, interrogation signed it. and adequate was made after for time signa- showing Killough’s and answer deliberate Accordingly, reflection. it ture, was received evidence. concluded that our decision in first prior require that to case did not Intern testified exclusion from, report poisoned had had evidence as fruit of interview he any- police with, tree.4 or Since or we conversation are the view that Killough case, testimony Intern’s and one about the and the else confession are only reasons, inadmissible for his information about the case other find we unnecessary newspaper holding. from accounts been derived review The Intern stated read. II. prom- no threats or further that he made Killough. ises to that when He testified been committed sign, custody an the care and inmate his usual declines the Jail. The practice pur is to statement tell inmate that obtained from him against procedure will him. suant to statement not used routine and result be questioning designed provide if He testified further that he is asked infor specific legitimate pur for a mation a the inmate time whether such pose against him, will statement be related to used the Jail’s classification responds persons it is confidential and will treatment of committed against its not used care. be him. He could not See 24-442 Section of the D.C.Code, pertinent part told set out in remember whether he this to margin.5 lough. Killough Any inquired did not who however decline inmate only an The District Court had the Intern’s inadmissible confession to tbe prosecutor Lyons before it. himself did officers. Tbe (cid:127) testify this, however, under differs circumstances questioned Lyons held the warden there the interview was at the hear- ing purpose securing motion, jury’s outside held confession to against presence, testify Lyons. and he used him and so warned did at his trial. Department 5. “The of Corrections with Lyons approval Oklahoma, 4. Cf. of the Commissioners shall power promulgate (1944), uphold- regu- have rules L.Ed. 1481 * * * ing government lations of a [penal] prison warden some hours after institutions and to establish and herently purpose identity questioner, a confidential to enable was told the person questioning, Jail best to treat commit- purpose to its used ted care. The rule not be fundamental answers the inmate’s required process fairness the due can be no doubt him. There permit incriminating given clause our does not re view use incriminating promise upon statements made such a liance proper jail employee performing func the Classification Intern in criminal authority prosecution statutory pursuant under tion circumstances present do not admissible.6 here.7 would not be inquire think an inmate who fails to Indeed, comparable in a somewhat sit- questioning purpose as to uation, involving an examination *4 confidentiality can the answers pursuant 4244, to 18 U.S.C. into the § penalized by having turn be answers sanity competency or of mental accused prosecutor and used ed to the over Congress trial, specifically to stand has against promises him. When the Jail provided by that no statement made the intelligent, confidentiality to inmate one accused in of the course the examination enough composed inquire astute, un to or against “shall be admitted questioning about the to be der use guilt any the on of accused the issue answers, is we think there made of his proceeding.” criminal of wisdom confidentiality pledge to implied of as and need for such a in that rule situation subjected all to the classification inmates obvious, recog- are has the rule underlying purpose questioning. nized even when statute does not so provide.8 although Here, questioning this; in- the it classifica- confirms raisod, supervisor’s testimony ap- farms, and the activi- industries other conduct pears practice inmates, pro- classify ties, have shown the not to of and to confidentiality promising proper treatment, care, inmates who- vide for their practice inquired, habilitation, if indeed the then ex- and reformation.” isted. Edwards, Pa. v. 318 6. See Commonwealth 309, Myers, 8. See 220 State S.C. 67 S.E. jury approving (1935), 1, 20, A. 23 178 506, (1951), 2d A.L.R.2d 32 430 jury if the found instruction the court said: by warden the accused was told “We do not undertake now to define the custody in- he was whose rights limits of [constitutional] such ex- criminating would not be used statements cept say authorities of that against him, made to the the statements Hospital] institution [the State will not entirely be excluded warden should protest permitted, be cused, over the ac- Rush, consideration; State v. 108 W.Va. any to reveal confession made holding (1929), 254, that ad- 740 150 S.E. [sanity] him in the course such exami- respect accused missions nation, any implicating or declarations shortages ato bank examin- account made charged.” him in the crime er, statutory authority having examine however, State, 180, Cf. Hall v. 209 Ark. officers, not admissible when bank (1945), 189 provided where the S.W.2d 917 statute representation by on a made in reliance making the doctor re that statements could examiner port sanity a court of examination prose- be him in a criminal used testify by the be called to court or Foster, N.M. cution. Cf. State 25 party, either and the court held that Annot., (1919); 183 A.L.R. 417 P. 7 testify doctor could as to 7 419 at 432. A.L.R. made in of the examination. the course Cisneros, Tyler U.S.App. People 7. In v. Ditson and Cal.2d (1951), Cal.Rptr. F.2d 24 denied 369 P.2d 714 D.C. cert. (1962), dis cert. denied and L.Ed. 732-733 Cisneros, missed accused was as jail, supervisor 9 L.Ed.2d 88 involved the apparently of classification as a similar statute hold to Cisneros under somewhat different ing court-appoint procedure as At to the from that used this case. admissibility plea guilty question ed alienists where the by to the least no insanity. Ditson, incriminating As to reason of cer admissions judgment granted supervisor during va- tiorari was and the was there the interview appeal does not of this case this court did not tion examination of inmates authority- pass admissibility specific place pursuant evi- take given Department think, however, by Congress, of dence.10 question Corrections, decided, under the and su- should now be since direction pervision Commissioners, appears District matter its cer- giv- tain to 24-442 of D.C.Code the event of another Section raised reg- “charge management trial on en remand. Washington Jail, includ- ulation” of the remand, At the second follow- ing power classify inmates, “to ing evidence, a tender of the District provide proper and to for their treat- Court, 342-344, ruled that ment, care, rehabilitation, reforma- rejected. the evidence was admissible. It Incriminating tion.” statements ob- proffered the notion that the evidence as tained from the accused in the exercise relating was fruit pur- of the classification function for stating confession, inadmissible poses proper treatment care challenged evidence did not not, think, should we be admitted as evi- way connect the defendant with the guilt, any of his dence more than such agree crime. Danaher and I statements obtained in course of a the evidence was admissible. only mental examination. Not *5 grossly unfair in the constitutional The Coroner’s before the them, sense to admit the but Jail au- jury was in on substance that October handicapped thorities well be in 25, 1960,he was called to the intersection seeking the future in information need- Jay Street, of Kenilworth in Avenue and classification, proper treatment, ed for the of of Southeast Section the care of inmates.9 Columbia, police captain; a that meet Jay captain along he went with the Street We hold that the statement obtained spot ato on east bank of Ana- the the Killough by Jail D. C. under the River, being costia unim- road there questioning routine classification con- proved; that he there saw remains procedure ducted under the in followed body, partially of a human with covered this was not admissible debris; body practically that was in him his trial. His conviction “destroyed” and was and .20 between 15 must be reversed and for a remanded new open feet from road in a “little conclusion, of trial. unnecessary this view it seems space” with “a lot of a brush and lot pass upon Killough’s of all trees around the immediate tention that the confession was inad- vicinity”; pronounced body that he missible because he had not then had dead; opinion that in his it had been the advice of counsel. period days; dead for a 10 to 14 body III. that while was was he there the morgue lifted into a and taken ambulance proceed now the contention that Morgue, autopsy to the District an admitting the District Court erred performed presence. am- was in his evidence offered lating Government picked up body. that victim’s On bulance driver testified he case, any 519, procedures cated, used in tlie 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d including request prisoner opinion was 5 08 but later signature. petition and the withdrawn dismissed mootness, U.S. 83 S.Ct. Judge Eahy’s opinion, three L.Ed.2d 769 judges joined, un- other stated that it necessary upon pass 9- our in this It is of course not function Wright thought upon validity evidence; pass of the case to procedure Jail, inad- should that missible; such evidence be held classification opin- Judge Burger’s dissenting propri- we intimate as to judges dissenting ety questions ion four stated that listed on the body. questionnaire used, as to form or as to admit evidence here previously body presence testified of the Coroner Goldie Killough (a Negro) spot hair Mrs. and trans- the naturally named date Morgue. Deputy that she ported dark brown but it to the lighter gold brown tinted it to October Coroner testified body highlights. performed autopsy Another woman friend testi- on a decomposition hair fied that Mrs. bleached her in an advanced state presence to “kind of a brown.” identi- reddish of the Coroner who body body pro- to him as the fied the It is clear that the evidence previously de- him as nounced dead scribed; way in no and his assistants Coroner was not able to deter- body; connected with the or to take mine of death the cause in other connection was established sample, did take blood but ways. body fact that the The mere body, sample hair from head particular it was time discovered dyed or bleached that the hair Killough’s discovered because of disclo bright orange-red to a color. The head illegally of its in his sure whereabouts FBI. hairs delivered to the secured confessions is not determinative. A and director licensed undertaker here, any than We cannot conclude more on October funeral home testified Wayne U.S.App. Jail and that he went denied, D.C. cert. signed presence a in his there 11 L.Ed.2d form, put in evi- “release” which was would not have Killough’s bearing dence. The release for” con been discovered “but signature and instructed” “authorized having regard fession, to the evidence “to care the funeral home take People and Cis here. Cf. also v. Ditson prepare for of Goldie burial the remains neros, supra P.2d at 729-731. note *6 Killough.” further contain- The release body road, open in near Killough ed that certified space, heavily area, populated close to a am husband of the above “I by only partially and was covered debris. di- named The funeral home decedent.” very place of near the home signed took rector stated that he then Killough’s girl (now then friend his sec- body Morgue and a release wife), police ond took him into where the per decomposed” “at least cent custody. body (or bones) In time the its by of- him was released to the Coroner’s would have been discovered and would day. su- on The assistant fice the next have been as that of Mrs. identified Morgue perintendent identified Killough. and had for Friends relatives Morgue indicated further records Kil- some time been concerned about Mrs. Killough body was re- of Goldie lough’s unexplained disappearance and on October leased to the funeral home pressing Killough explain had it 28, 1960. report and them it. One them missing agent persons had bu- An that he exam- even called the FBI testified police microscope had the hairs reau. The ined under lough disappearance had about from office ceived the Coroner’s untruths, Negroid discrepancies, hairs discovered if not found that hairs were story. They part had found blood which for the most been bleach- red-yellow-brown of Mrs. the mat in the trunk color ed to a but type and had that the blood dark car the few unbleached areas were Killough. that of Mrs. of Mrs. was brown to black. A woman friend Killougli already Coroner that described liad ac same as 1 1. Ás indicated agent Deputy Coroner; Killougli knowledged FBI was dead and the Mrs. standing long authorizing showed friends of home take two the funeral corpse’s body prepare to that hair was similar burial. The her it for Killough. Mrs. received condition Morgue was the from the funeral director the evidence based the Classi- exclude Government that the note further We fication Intern’s interview. of evidence item had an additional employed Killough. against A nurse ordered. So Killough became the Jail testified hospital orderly unit in the an inmate WRIGHT, Circuit J. SKELLY Jail, or with he worked (concurring part dissenting said that she around her. She part). that some him and conversations concur in Parts I and II of I brought June, 1961, some time after opinion. For the court’s excellent charges relating papers to criminal my concur reasons stated Part II read; when him to her case, rence papers, she asked he showed her the U.S.App.D.C. 305, happened, and that he what had join in Part am unable to I incriminating statements her. certain opinion respectfully III the court’s argue us that does given dissent therefrom. To reasons testimony inadmissible, al nurse’s in Part II of the for the court’s though indicated trial his counsel at the exclusion of the confession made stating that he without his reasons Intern, Prison I add Classification object express to it. “wanted” to We following: in- The confession was admissibility here, no conclusion as to its tainted admissible because it was the although may no reason for we note that illegally fruit of the obtained confessions excluding readily apparent.12 extracted hold that are constrained to day States, before. supra, the evidence discussed 315 F.2d including Part, illegally at 245. even Without obtained beyond confessions, it is nurse, justify clear cavil Jail affirm- does admissions kind would have conviction, in view ance by Killough. been made the Intern See Bram v. error discussed earlier. my prior Killough As I said in concurr ence,2 prime excluding reason for L.Ed. 568 new The case proceed trial, is with if reversed the Government chooses [*] one, [*] with [*] remanded directions confessions obtained in that 5(a), F.R.Cr.P., time will be is so *7 potentially confession conclusively presumed is that conducive procured during violation illegal detention coercion of Rule that in- ately warning. preceded by opin add, however, 12. in States that Judge Wright Judge Fahy ions of in Bayer, 1394, 91 v. 331 U.S. 67 S.Ct. suggest first the Bayer (1947), a L.Ed. second confession 1654 ease must in agent now be considered to an FBI six months after light Mallory rule: 114 U.S. making of an inadmissible first con App.D.C. 310, 315, F.2d at at 315 properly fession was held admitted where 251. the accused was not under actual arrest specifically warned and where he be Supreme case the Since n making second confession that fore Connecticut, held, Fahy in Court has v. anything against he said be used 85, 89, 11 L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. 375 U.S. Here, Killough made the him. when based 171 nurse, already statement illegally poisonous is on evidence obtained manslaughter at been convicted doctrine. fruit under the Silverthorne trial, jail pursuant and was in States, Lumber Silverthorne Co. v. United conviction; least nine months L.Ed. 251 40 S.Ct. 64 U.S. apprehended; passed since he was (1920). 319 was made to a fel involved 312-316, worker, U.S.App.D.C. F.2d in 2. 114 315 low not or other vestigating agent, at 248-252. and was not immedi- 936 illegally voluntary. in of Rule then obtained violation There is rebuttable (a), F.R.Cr.P., subsequent confessions, subsequent presumption all confes by continuing abstracted, like- in or whom are however sions are tainted wise inadmissible unless the Government v. fluence coercion. convincingly States, supra, at 312- demonstrates absence illegal (concurring prior with the of connection F.2d at 248-253 presenting proof, opinion). is fession. In reason this rule following others, finally considerations, among prisoner, A broken obvious. police interrogation, has, important: persistent (1) are most Did the de- already least, sub- mind committed have the advice counsel own fendant sequent illegally mercies of a sen obtained himself tencing the tender confes- through plea guilty. (2) sion? interval court What was the time (3) prisoner between confessions?3

A whose mechanisms of resist Was during ap defendant are defeat and the admitted bail ance subdued While, indicated, parent futility interval ?4 these of further combat is they any rights may position exclusive, considerations not are exercise interroga respect certainly provide primary to further have avenues functionaries, par determining inquiry tion Government whether ticularly subsequent when know he does even confession from resulted illegally illegally is that an abstracted one. obtained against him and admissible Applying criteria, hold these I would confession, law, spite still offers Intern confession to the protection further self-in directly illegally from ob- resulted crimination. that, being tained confessions and illegal activity fruit of of Government then situation which This was the functionaries, it must be excluded presented itself to when he was his trial. them- Otherwise “the courts by the Prison Classification accomplices selves in willful [become already Having confessed twice Intern. law,” disobedience of McNabb United ready hours, period of 24 he was within States, As more. far as to confess some lough knew, L.Ed. 819 may Intern have been obtaining policeman an- another still the less than other confession. DANAHER, (dissent- Circuit confessions, last hours since his ing). bail, nor did he have not been released on Supreme After the Court’s decision have the benefit of counsel who States, McNabb United being confessions, prior told him that his consid S.Ct. 608 this court illegally obtained, were inadmissible U.S. ered Mitchell v. United evidence. Under these circumstances App.D.C. 171, (1943). The say obvious, least, to me *8 sitting thought was then there division un- the confession to the Intern was apply McNabb no alternative but to, of, or related not the result not tainted rule, “exclusionary” con and Mitchell’s immediately illegally prior ob- The Government viction reversed. was fantasy. pure tained confessions is devastating would realized how justice upon It seems to me that this court should effect the administration ap- any sweeping clearly automatic and state that a confession such where States, Wong Compare Bayer, Compare 4. Sun v. United 3. United States 331 491, 407, 532, 1394, 471, 540-541, (1947), L.Ed. 83 S.Ct. U.S. 67 S.Ct. 371 U.S. approved approved where in which admis- 2d 441 the Court the Court made of a second confession oí a confession made six the admission sion second illegally after had been admitted after ob- the defendant months having bail, been first confession made tained. being illegally while he was detained. accordingly Against background, plication McNabb, such no and we had regarding sought granted. properly difficulty in ex- certiorari was Killough’s prior cludable reversed, Supreme Court presentation the United before Mitchell, States 322 U.S. 65 Commissioner on October States noting page at 88 L.Ed. S.Ct. Quite 1960. the circum otherwise were applica- other three cases appearance stances before after tions of the McNabb doctrine had Youngdahl Judge Commissioner. challenged by been Mr. the Government. prepared meticulous care had Justice Frankfurter in Mitchell under- analyzed correctly problem. which holding. explain He took to the McNabb States, v. United pointed out, McNabb, as had that “[t]he (D.D.C.1961). judges here Four mere fact confession was made joined prepared, opinion, in an which I custody while in the does citing pertinent ex cases had at render it inadmissible.” 322 U.S. pounded principles upon which we emphasized at He Kil have affirmed lough conviction. saying: McNabb, basis of States, v. United pur- “Inexcusable detention for (1962).1 There 315 F.2d at 241 pose illegally extracting evidence his. had duress. knew accused, from an the successful rights. Judge Youngdahl ad had held inculpatory such extraction of state- voluntary missible as the confession questioning ments continuous hearing. preliminary after many psychological hours under Youngdahl specifically found pressure, were the decisive features had been advised in the McNabb led case which us right any making had the to refrain from rule conviction such evi- statement; made statement he dence could not stand.” 322 U.S. could be utilized as in a (Emphasis 64 S.Ct. at 897. against him; re that he was entitled to added.) counsel; tain ato that he was entitled preliminary hearing at which either Again Mallory States, v. United examine; attorney or his could cross 1356, 1 U.S. L.Ed.2d 1479 S.Ct. to a entitled continuance (1957), Mr. Frankfurter Justice ex- in order to retain counsel. plained 5 and McNabb terms Rule caution,” “judicial requirement its judicial Such is the caution which is presentation of the accused before contemplated Fed.R.Crim.P. 5. This unnecessary the Commissioner “without court had twice said that if an accused Up- delay.” pointed The Court out that shall have warning received such he is 410, 69 shaw v. United not, thereafter free to talk or if (1948) im- S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. 100 accused, under circumstances, such vol- plied doc- no relaxation of the McNabb untarily admits his crime his confession TJpshmo trine. clear that the may be received him. Su- illegally petitioner had been detained preme Court refused review our de- thirty very pur- hours least “for cisions in challenged Goldsmith pose securing States these (Emphasis added.) Jackson v. certainly fessions.” States.2 It is at 172. so that the mere fact confession has *9 opinions 1. intervening The various that case recited hearing Commissioner’s —was concerning Killough’s appear- the facts result earlier prior appearance ance before the Commissioner where he uttered to his before the rights. Detailed, judge was of his advised A Commissioner. fifth voted to re- addition, grounds separately were the circumstances under verse on stated. following day repeat- the judges States, U.S.App. Goldsmith v. ed his Four United confession. held that 107 305, 335, reaffirming despite the the D.C. 277 F.2d cert. confession — denied sub 938 following day, police appellant one in officers the the made to received been judicial caution, as custody its use evidence. bar to noted. not a 36, Carignan, 342 U.S. United States 25th, Thereafter the Miss Holmes 97, (1951); 45, 48 L.Ed. 96 S.Ct. 72 jail had the to been at see Mitchell, 65, 64 U.S. 322 United States v. lawyer left to for He secure a him. ; Wong (1944) v. Unit- Sun 896 cf. S.Ct. jail proffered declined at the serv- States, 83 407 ed U.S. S.Ct. 371 attorney of an he ices whom knew be- States, Bailey (1963); 117 cause he had counsel to the dead been (1964). 241, U.S.App.D.C. 542 328 F.2d day woman. to That an officer came see personal property about his 13,1960, appellant had This October body to secure clearance

.strangled he wife because believed be turned over to an undertaker. He in other men. she was interested signed lough consenting to re- form body of her own placed trunk her although obviously, officer, he ceive the ways means car as he considered signed could have to do so. refused He corpse. finally disposing drove He Impul- release the undertaker. “girl friend,” past down of his the home sively, days ten to after within which Holmes, Miss Anna and concealed think about the web of be- circumstances body dump. to then returned He ginning his wife death of choked Miss Holmes. hands, his own what he told the officer Neighbors questioned and relatives happened had and how he committed the disappearance him as to Goldie warning judicial crime. still Killough. appellant prodded, Thus in his he fresh mind but wished finally reported disappearance her talking tinue when the officer arose to Interrogated Missing Bureau. Persons leave. by police, purported supply leads he theOn 24th before the Commissioner’s possible police cheeked value. As the guided hearing, had the officers to he information, they he out the discovered body of his where had concealed the They appointment for lied. colleagues my victim. ex- One would up report headquarters to him clear concerning corpse on clude evidence keeping discrepancies. Instead of ground directly discovery that its Pittsburgh appointment, he fled. From wrongdoing. police He sulted has “girl friend,” telephoned Miss to his -thought of such evidence as “fruit Holmes, him the who told poisonous tree.” Thereafter, seeking him. to her returning to locate four, sugges- When this court divided five her trial. tion, girl returned new home friend’s he went concerning witness The Government then called as a events he told her of where jail Kil classification officer whom testified some of which she lough appearance living person before time, ex- trial. At that —after Holmes, details related some cept possibly Commissioner—had Miss concerning single witness no con of the crime. The un- knew a fact crime, police. even situation where nection with witnessed Tyler telephoned the detectives was unlike was. She 5, States, up. picked who came and denied, (1951), 343 U.S. cert. of- told the On October 639, L.Ed. S.Ct. of his constitutional ficers he was aware opinion recited: deny rights and neither affirm nor Tyler days later, May 8th, killed his wife. Presented “Two that he had one Commissioner before States States, 285 F.2d 675 cert. de nom. Carter v. United D.C. (1960); nied, L.Ed. 5 L.Ed.2d 86 U.S.App. 2d 852 Jackson v. United *10 Gilkey’s lips Gilkey du- course of and her were sealed. Talk about wrongdoing! supervisor fruits of This case has ties as of classification Tyler Gilkey v. asked reached the nadir. As in Mitchell the institution. charge U.S.App.D.C. 171, upon which he about Tyler Whereupon, again, F.2d 426 this court committed. once painted peated has itself into a in substance the written corner.3 previous fession he had made Killough’s. I would Since affirm Saturday to Furr at Detective goes saying conviction, I without testifying headquarters. Gil- so Judge agree III so much of Part key’s recollection was refreshed Washington’s opinion as holds admissible during memorandum he had made testimony of the nurse and the evi the interview.” body. relating to dence the victim’s said, effect, whatever This court then might question as to there have been admissibility the confession before brought Tyler Com before the had been “judicial missioner where he received Tyler’s admissibility caution,” the Gilkey questioned. “Indeed, quite impossible as to those statements DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPUBLI jail.” U. Commissioner’s and the COMMITTEE, Appellant, CAN S.App.D.C. 31. hearing following a At second trial The BOARD OF ELECTIONS FOR the on the of that al., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et officer, Judge Appellees. classification Cur- appears prepared ran al., Appellants, Carl L. SHIPLEY et Killough, as United States v. findings (D.D.C.1963). His The BOARD OF ELECTIONS FOR the ruling Kil- conclusions led al., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAet lough’s classi- further confession Appellees. fication intern be received in evi- Nos. 18552. agreed He thus with dence. Youngdahl who had at the first found Appeals States Court of later statements District of Columbia Circuit. voluntary. independent Of Argued April 20, 1964. Kil- course it had become obvious April 21, Decided 1964. lough episode. to talk about the wanted per- He carried around exhibited — haps proudly clippings from the news- — papers He which had detailed his crime. later narrated the circumstances

nurse. Meanwhile, following opinion of our 4, 1962, judgment

October our of remand reached the District Court on November On December lough days was released on Two bail. later he married Miss Holmes. When trial, called as a witness at the second privilege she asserted her his wife generally, Confessions, 3. Sec Coerced 31 U.Chi.L.Rev. 326-27