MacEo Hutcherson v. United States

filing of the Court of suit in the and the those al- claims were not

Claims after Treasury. stated, the As

lowed administratively, and

claims denied were these were

we told that annuitants represented counsel at argument Claims, Court they opportunity offer

where all arguments

facts favor. their

They presented appeared their also

arguments the District appears

here. No basis for removal

the trustee.

Affirmed. HUTCHERSON,Appellant,

Maceo America,

UNITED STATES of Appellee.

No. 18747. Appeals

United States Court of District Columbia Circuit.

Argued Nov. May

Decided Opinion

Concurring June Shorter, Washington, Jr.,

Mr. John A. C., appellant. D. Nelson, Atty.,

Mr. Jerome U. Asst. S. Acheson, with whom Messrs. David C. Atty., Duncan, Principal U. Charles T. S. Q. Atty., Nebeker, Asst. U. S. and Frank Atty., charges brief, Asst. U. S. were on the January criminal until appellee. investigatory about a month after session above described. The conduct Judge, Before Chief Bazelon, appellant’s superior pursuing officers in Fahy Judges. Washington, Circuit inquiries possible improprieties about his course his duties as member Judge: FAHY, Circuit Department of the Police fell short soliciting Appellant an indicted for was arrest. See Scarbeck States, accepting U.S.App.D.C. he 135, and at a time when 115 a bribe 317 Metropolitan 546, denied, 856, was an officer of Police cert. 374 83 U.S. charging 1897, Department. 1077, rehearing denied, count solici L.Ed.2d (Supp. upon tation rests 84 S.Ct. 10 L.Ed.2d § U.S.C. accept 1077; V, 1959-63), charging States, the count Seals v. United is to upon Appellant contrary, ance D.C.Code 704. § years 1006, 1009, im 325 F.2d was sentenced one to three to note cert. denied prisonment, him 376 but the court committed L.Ed.2d only months, suspended for six execution remainder and of the sentence I consider now the contention placed years. probation him on three for that the confession should ex have been cluded appellant because made when was He a detailed contends that without counsel or the advice of counsel. written confession used in evidence was subject As law on this has evolved 5(a), in Fed. violation Rule obtained thus far in the decisions of the R.Crim.P., and should have been exclud Court the answer must turn in each ease States, Mallory ed under upon wise, its facts. It would not be 1356, 1 possible, even if it were to formulate agree, I do not for a now application standard for uniform 5(a) prior made to arrest. Neither Rule to all cases. But is clear it that Mallory applies. nor The circumstances lack of counsel does not and of itself superiors appellant’s when that preclude self-incriminating the use of Department the Police became concerned during evidence obtained such lack. We may engaged that he the con may not here decide the in iso subsequently in duct which led to the bearing lation from upon the facts to dictment he ordered to come was personality individual These involved. Headquarters Municipal Police surrounding and all circumstances exist Building questioning. for He es was ing deprivation when is claimed to During corted there another officer. have occurred must be considered. questioning under he was restraint go to the extent he free that was not to There had been no indictment here way consequence his own his without to inas Massiah v. United 377 U.S. is, policeman; a status as the testi 12 L.Ed.2d 246. mony charge against indicates had he declined pending No criminal was investigation remain he appellant. and assist He had not been arrested. probably suspended would have been then investigation While it is true the was investigation at upon him, there. When the purpose appears focused its headquarters concluded and the con principally have been to obtain his writing placed signed, ap resignation fession rather than to lead to a pellant resigned police charge. from the among sig- force and criminal And other actually being building left the without nificant differences between this case and arrested.1 He was not indicted on Illinois, Escobedo v. State of pre-trial making The record made at hear finished stenographer his statement ing appellant p. m., indicates that arrived at at 2 or 2:30 headquarters signed approximately p. about 10:30 or o’clock he it at m. 4:00 5, 1963, a. onm. December that he suspicion, reasonable causes 12 L.Ed.2d *** withholding any Escobedo, information here, a appellant unlike judicial being investigated authorities police from the officer mature * * Reading these statutes superiors. appellant undoubtedly pressure upon put the admis true is also he and knowl- him. not mature Were made a confession sion in evidence of edgeable person who had been a likely a verdict insure before trial is years, officer five no we would doubt guilty extra of such on the basis as matter of law hold guilt statement, judicial is whereas involuntary. But on the rec- whole public to be determined matter age, ord, including experience appellant’s judicial proceeding the assistance with position, issue of volun- we think the counsel, counsel unless which, factual one tariness was a See Massiah waived. manner, in it been decided the 1199; 204, supra, 84 at U.S. S.Ct. 377 necessarily in have resulted its would not 487-488, Illinois, supra at v. Escobedo The exclusion as evidence. decision was a confes 84 1758. For this reason S.Ct. reached, however, in a manner which repudiated is sion made and before constitutionally was defective as now ex- preclude suspect. the law does Yet plained. voluntary, as if unless obtained its use Denno, 368, 378 Jackson v. U.S. evi the of a violation of some result Court, 84 S.Ct. 12 the right. dentiary rule or constitutional Rog- reasserting adopted position the in each ease must determine in The courts Richmond, v. 81 S.Ct. ers U.S. right has a rule or been whether such 5 L.Ed.2d referred to the de- Appellant’s violated. confession right some at fendant’s constitutional Mallory of the the result of a violation stage proceedings object to the in the to rule; en to and his constitutional a use a and to have fair confession joy had not been of counsel the assistance hearing a reliable determination on he the confession. denied when made voluntariness, uninfluenced the issue of falsity by the or of the confession. truth any event He contends that courts of The case arose state involuntary ground. where the New York issue voluntari- on should been excluded that jury. pre-trial transcript The ness had been submitted From the admissibility the con on the said: appears con officer fession it that danger obvious and serious ducting inquiry led which to jury disregarded disbe- or appellant 1 D.C.Code read to confession (the defendant’s) lieved Jackson’s provides or officer 319. an § testimony pertaining to the confes- employee Columbia of the District sion had done because it believed he testify re to matters who to refuses precisely charged he what with any lating employment office or to his doing. proceeding he is defendant wherein Denno, supra, Jackson U.S. at v. ground that as a called witness 1774, 1784. Departing S.Ct. may him tend to incriminate answer People its earlier decision Stein v. employment” his office or “shall forfeit York, State of New arising therefrom. the benefits ap L.Ed. the Court provi Government concedes proved Mr. Justice Frankfurter’s dis investiga application no to sion had senting language in case: ap being Also read to tion conducted. The determination must not be in- pellant 175 which D.C.Code § feeling fluenced an irrelevant officer to it a for a makes crime guilty any felony certitude that accused is compromise other unlaw “failing give he the crime confessed. known facts ful act 315, 320-321, 378 U.S. at Rogers Referring to its v. decision L.Ed.2d 1265.

Richmond, supra, Court continued: 385-386, reliability of has a confession court, In our case the trial nothing do with its voluntariness admitting against —proof that a defendant committed involuntariness, claim of its was influ charged act he is with which by inquiry enced into At its truth. and to which he is not has confessed pre-trial hearing on the motion deciding be considered when suppress following the confession the oc whether a will defendant’s has curred when the defendant took the overborne. stand: 384-385, 378 U.S. at you Let Court: me ask you disapproved this: Were the statements The reason the Court has made you —the answers made and the inquiry this line of due as denial you statements made in the state- process determining law is that in you signed finally ment true? admissibility inquiry in- a confession say The Witness: I would to its truth distorts the issue of volun- some of the statements was true. tariness. As stated in Jackson Denno: injects Under untariness. evidence confession into the considerations the New York irrelevant and given of the truthfulness assessment jury inevitably procedure, impermissible of of the vol- United States ute in there are ^[******] Q. Mr. Duncan ago You that some of the statements said true, Attorney]: to the is that correct? [the Judge Assistant a min- A. That’s correct. 1774, 378 U.S. at 84 S.Ct. Q. Now, you I want to read the explains The Court also the matter as point statement and out to the Court follows: the statements there that are inescapably is now clear that as false of now. the Fourteenth Amendment forbids coun- [defense Mr. Williams involuntary the use of confessions May it, please. : I sel] see only probable un- because of the (The was shown Mr. exhibit reliability of are confessions that Williams.) obtained a in manner deemed coer- (The exhibit.) perused cive, “strong- witness the but also of because the Mr. Williams: What was the ly society felt our attitude of question ? important human sacri- values are agency govern- ficed where an of the question Mr. Duncan: is to The ment, securing point parts out the course of the what state- conviction, wrings out a confession ment untrue. against will,” of an accused : Is that Williams ? Mr. Alabama, Blackburn v. State of The Yes. Court: 199, 206-207, U.S. going : It’s to take Mr. Williams 4 L.Ed.2d “the and because long time, Your Honor. deep-rooted feeling the hurry. The Court I’m in : no obey enforcing must the while law law; the in the end life and The confession was then reviewed with liberty endangered can as much in detail as its or witness truth illegal Again falsity. during arguments methods used to convict thought testimony those to be criminals as of counsel this was discussed from the actual them- criminals and the court times several referred Spano York, statements, selves.” New v. truthfulness of after Supreme supp The motion to verdict does not suffice. court denied the repeatedly Jackson has so held. Court ress.2 Denno, supra, 376, 84 v. U.S. quite Jack- All inconsistent with this People citing Malinski v. State Rogers son Richmond. v. Denno and v. York, New language latter, using equally In the California, 89 L.Ed. Stroble v. applicable case, held to our the Court L.Ed. question whether Payne Arkansas, State admissible, voluntary was by le- reference to a answered gal into standard which took account pursued by the course Su probable circumstance of truth preme Denno was in Jackson v. permissi- falsity. And this is not a New York remand the case to the ble standard the Due Process under permit a valid courts Clause the Fourteenth Amend- under state decision on voluntariness of the ment. attention setting procedure, question aside judge focused, for should have been result.3 to abide the the conviction purposes of Federal Constitu- disposition case, rather than tion, question whéther conviction, setting aside the itself behavior law enforce- State’s two influenced Court was ment as to officials was such overbear One the deference considerations. bring petitioner’s resist will to relationship federal between due to freely about confessions not self- The other was the and state courts. determined —a to be an- attack on the conviction fact disregard complete swered with corpus pro collateral habeas petitioner in fact whether ceedings appeal. direct than rather spoke employment the truth. applies considerations Neither these instead, by the trial and the present appeal. The trial Supreme Errors, of a stand- of admitting in failed to the confession by ard ref- infected the inclusion of responsibility jury in- on struct their reliability probable erences to result- this and with the matter. For reason constitutionally ed in a invalid establishing general rule all for * * a out * omit- conviction. [Footnote procedure cases, to set is ted.] and to remand the aside the conviction 534, 543-544, new to the District Court case It of course is immaterial by trial, preceded a determination present case the Due Process Clause the court of the issue of voluntariness the Fifth instead of the Fourteenth meets standards in a manner which applicable. Amendment is Rogers- v. of Jackson Denno ánd Rich bearing solely mond, is, on evidence remaining question The how to is excluding voluntariness, on that on its remedy pro error this of constitutional portions. issue all evidence and consideration That substantial evidence oth guilty supports er falsity. than the confession its truth or not, however, 2. The court allowed the statements to be 3. The Court did grant- preclude used but indicated an instruction the New York court given they might ing would be dis- be new if trial without more the State regarded jury they preferred required if the were believed a new that course. trial, hope however, only appropriate made in the of a reward or result if under procedure No coercion. such instruction was courts the New York deter- given. mined involun- the confession was tary. preme Court, reversing, Some additional clarification reviewed procedure juris- be followed this evidence and said: required.4 diction is undisputed [t]he facts showed that Wright States, supra compulsion applied. note As to that cited the upon earlier cases McAffee v. matter there no issue jury States, properly App.D.C. 142, which the could United permitted required pass. 21; Id., App.D.C. F.2d F.2d alleged oral statements and the denied, cert. written confession should have been 84 L.Ed. and Catoe v. United excluded. States, U.S.App.D.C. 131 F.2d 16-17, 16; 266 cordingly, Ziang Sung U.S. at at 4. Ac- and also noted Wan v. unnecessary it for the upon Court to comment the absence of a Sitting Wright 69 L.Ed. 131. en banc in hearing jury with the excluded. said; this court jurisdiction, however, by In this practice which calls for practice,” hearing, however, “law and such a the court first is sound again approve part we it. But that preliminary holds a for the practice which, under if the court purpose determining whether finds there is evidence basis there is evidence from which the might which the be held jury properly could conclude voluntary question be of its volun voluntary. If the jury, tariness is submitted to the is court is no concludes there such evi-' altogether consistent with Jackson dence, it must exclude the confes- v. Denno. Under that decision the trial sion; but if it finds there is evi- initially court must decide might dence on the which basis of it resolving admissibility, the issue voluntary, held to be then the way If voluntariness one or the other. question of voluntariness is submit- involuntariness, the court finds the court jury. ted confession; must exclude the it never goes jury any purpose. at 13. If Ziang Sung reference to the case the court the confession concludes that Wan, jurisdic- evidence; voluntary also arose this is it admitted in is tion, interesting; ruling is jury for there the trial but the bound ap court issue of volun- submitted the of the court on voluntariness. Under jury propriate may on the tariness to the evidence instructions it decide that bearing during trial, involuntary, thereon adduced the the in which inquiry. pre-trial disregard the-jury without a Su- event it. must Appendix opinion States, U.S.App.D.C. an to the Court’s 112 United procedure States, 392; Wright in Jackson v. Denno the the F.2d 303 District of Columbia is referred to as 4 102 250 F.2d (where follows: confession could be found the Appeals voluntary, issue, jury). for District The Court of the is for the the however, Columbia, of does seem S.Ct. at 1793. More 378 U.S. at over, 84 day of York sanction a variation the New same vacated the Court on the requirement practice, juris the the that with and remanded two cases this judge preliminary diction, States, hear- hold a full Pea v. 116 U.S. United ing, may App.D.C. 410, at tes- which the defendant Mus and jury. tify, presence States, U.S.App. of the outside the chette v. pro is not the trial clear what D.C. ceedings 322 F.2d for further admitting conformity find the con- must before with Jackson v. submitting Denno, the issue of vol- fession and 378 U.S. 569 and Sawyer jury. untariness v. jury- preme in Massiah decisions and observed that be It will Escobedo, Judge Bazelon without participation the Chief authorized after thus subscribing of the to the details treat- in evidence the confession is admitted opinion in the jury ment of matters requires of those determination court agrees itself, reached in with result the trial when the at voluntariness Judge opinion. bearing guilt, matters to these accord As on and evidence Washington ingly falsity file later a statement of con will on truth usually fession, may his views. and before be jury. v. from Jackson have seen We proceed- Reversed and remanded Rogers that such Denno v. Richmond and ings opinion. not this inconsistent with may in the be considered evidence not But initial decision on voluntariness. Judge WASHINGTON, (con- Circuit ruled the con once the court has that curring). Denno, voluntary Jackson v. fession is Judge Fahy’s opinion in case was this 378, 84 see 378 note 8 at May A released on statement jury authorizes reconsideration my I was to be released later. views disagreement ruling, with such notwith publishing separately, am now it as fol- standing might be before evidence there lows: jury volun not limited to issue of agree appellant’s I must conviction that tariness, for one decision favor be reversed remanded a new already voluntariness will inadequacy trial of the because made, except free all evidence finding appel- on the voluntariness upon which issue. bears difficulty, lant’s I have confession. some more word record One as however, majority’s with the dismissal respecting be made appellant’s should contention confes- at determination voluntariness sion should have been excluded because it ¿is hearing by the alone: Jackson v. court obtained in violation of procedure Denno makes clear counsel. Massiah v. United must reliable “insure clear-cut 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 of the (1964); determination of the voluntariness Illinois, Escobedo v. including confession, the resolution of disputed upon facts which the voluntari (1964). agree point I While may depend.” ness issue at justify pres- would not on the reversal S.Ct. at 1788. record should record, developed ent facts course judge’s “show the conclusions in this might compel of a new trial well regard findings upon and his under Escobedo, exclusion on of this confession lying may express or facts ascertain grounds. perhaps Mallory, pres- able from the record.” 378 U.S. note provide adequate ent record an does 84 S.Ct. at 1781. The better basis with confidence that conclude practice argues express find favor appellant was not under arrest ings. interrogation;1 time of his sufficiently explore agreement disposition court did We appellant’s experi- application of the involves the of whether case as it procedures as Denno and the ence officer rendered Jackson advice jurisdiction unnecessary. of counsel be followed in this when admissibility of a confession turns fully developed If a record reveals upon the its voluntariness. issue of appellant was under arrest interrogation respect possible applica- time of With his Mallory experience tion of rule and officer did ren- of the Su- as a See Scarbeck v. United States. 115 U.S. (1962), (1963), denied, App.D.C. 317 F.2d 546 cert. cert. denied, (1964). 11 L.Ed.2d 982 (1963); Seals v. United L.Ed.2d 1077 legal unnecessary, der advice his confes- sion be Because should excluded.

present respects record is in these unsat- isfactory, pre- I do not should think we majority opin- these matters. The ap- precluding

ion should not read as

pellant filling out the record on points in

these a new trial. My views on the to counsel

police interrogation will be set out more

fully future, near in a case now

pending my opinion in this court. majority the facts noted that no indictment had been and no returned brought

charge against appel

lant the time of the Illinois, supra,

irrelevant. Escobedo v.

and see United States ex rel. Russo v. (3d Cir., May Jersey,

New 351 F.2d 429

20, 1965).

AKTIEBOLAGET SVENSKA AMERIKA (SWEDISH-AMERICAN LINIEN LINE) al., Petitioners, et

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION America, and United States of Respondents, Society Agents,

American of Travel Inc. (ASTA), Intervenor.

No. 18554. Appeals States Court of District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Dec.

Decided June

Case Details

Case Name: MacEo Hutcherson v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Jun 16, 1965

Citation: 351 F.2d 748

Docket Number: 18747_1

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.