sign in sign up
<<
Home , The Confession (House)

1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- 12855 received, read twice by its title, and re­ extend the time during which appropriations ·HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES may be made !or the purposes of such act; ferred to the Committee on Public and Works. TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1959 H.R. 7062. An act to provide for payment of annuities to widows and dependent chil­ AMENDMENT OF MUTUAL SECU­ The House met at 12 o'clock noon. dren of Comptrollers General. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp, The message also announced that the RITY ACT OF 1954-ADDITIONAL D.D., offered the following prayer: AMENDMENT Senate had passed, with amendments in Joshua 1: 5-6: I will not jail thee, nor which the concurrence of the House is Mr. BRIDGES (for himself and Mr. forsake thee; be strong and of good cour­ requested, bills and a joint resolution of JoHNSTON of South Carolina) submitted age. the House of the following titles: an amendment, intended to be proposed 0 Thou who dost control and preside H.R. 322. An act for the relief of Mon­ by them, jointly, to the bill

- There being no objection, the Clerk passed~ and-a motion to reconsider was of the ~ whole House on -the · State of the read the joint resolution, as foilows: laid on the table. Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4957) to amend chapter 223 of title 18, Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep­ United States Code, to p:rovide for the admis­ resentatives of the United States of America MRS. LOURENE 0. ESTES sion of certain evidence, and for other pur­ in Congress assembled, That, notwithstand­ poses. After general debate, which shall be ing the provision of section 212(a) (4) of the The Clerk called the bill

"delay" then~ as the conference commit­ without unnecessary delay remains. Mr. YATES. I yield to the distin· tee decided last year? But, as a rule of evidence, when you talk guished chairman of the committee. Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, will the about evidence, if you put the word Mr. CELLER. Rule 5(a) would be gentleman yield? "reasonable" or "unreasonable" in, then, utterly useless if you did not have some Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. I yield. the tail wags the dog. The rule is and proscription against taking confessions Mr. WILLIS. For the very reason that should remain that if it is voluntary, it which would be obtained as a result of if you put the word in, the issue in every is admissible. If because of a delay-any violating rule 5(a). It would be like case would be principally not whether kind of a delay-if because of that-and having an income tax law without a the confession is good or bad and not the idea of the delay is to take advantage penalty. What good is an income tax whether it is voluntary or involuntary, of the delay in order to coerce a confes­ law without a penalty? What good is but the issue would be-was it within a sion-that would be a factor as to the 5(a) if you do not have some sanctions reasonable time? evidence before the court. attached to it? What good is unlawful Mr. YATES. But the issue in every Mr. YATES. All afternoon propo­ search and seizure or a wiretap prohibi­ case is whether a confession is voluntary nents of the bill have declared that they tion if the Court does not also say that or involuntary. want to eliminate the uncertainty re­ you cannot use the result of the wiretap Mr. WILLIS. In the Mallory case, you sulting from the Mallory decision. What or that you cannot use the result of the have a case where there was no coercion uncertainty? If an uncertainty existed unlawful seizure, or the result of the and no psychological pressure. It was a in the decision, it is being clarified by unlawful search? voluntary confession and just because the courts, with proper cognizance of and Mr. YATES. Will the chairman agree there was a lapse of time of 7 hours, the protection for the basic rights of the de­ with me that the sole purpose of the confesssion was struck down on that fendants. There is no need for this bill. bill is to strike the word "unnecessary" basis and they freed him. Although he out of the phrase "without unnecessary confessed freely and voluntarily and told It has been asserted that the trial court will be relieved by this bill of pass­ delay" as it appears in the Federal rule? the truth, the charge had to be dis­ Mr. CELLER. The reasoning of the missed. ing on the question of "unnecessary de­ lay," but that is not true. What will gentleman is eminently sound. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to Mr. YATES. So that the real purpose strike out the last word. happen now is that another factor will have been added for the determination of this bill is to make the rule read Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the gen­ "without delay," no matter how long, tleman from Louisiana has just proved of the court as to whether the confession is voluntary or made by coercion, and rather than "without unnecessary de­ my point by his explanation of the Mal­ lay." lory decision. In spite of all arguments that is whether the time of holding a de­ to the contrary, and eliminating many of fendant prior to arraignment-whether Mr. Chairman, this bill has been de­ the cloudy arguments which have been it be for 2 minutes or 10 hours, to use the scribed by its proponents as a simple made today, it is now clear that the sole phrase of the gentleman from Colorado­ bill. It is a simple bill, but it carries an purpose of this bill is to strike out the amounts to coercion and thereby renders enormous series of consequences. The word "unnecessary" from the phrase the confession inadmissible. glory of our democratic system is that "without unnecessary delay" as it ap­ The gentleman from Tennessee said each of our citizens is entitled to equal pears in the Federal rule. In doing so, that he had tried cases before district justice under law and that no man shall the question of delay is eliminated en­ judges and that he always found them be adjudged guilty of any crime, unless tirely in connection with consideration to be men of learning and understand­ he shall have been proved guilty beyond of the admissibility of a defendant's con­ ing. Why not then leave the question a reasonable doubt. The protections of fession in court. It was for that reason, of reasonable or unreasonableness to the Bill of Rights were placed in our too, that the word "reasonable" was not the judges? Constitution by our Founding Fathers inserted before the word "delay" on line Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chair­ as a bulwark to help the individual in his 11, page 1, although the conferees had man, will the gentleman yield? relations with the awesome power of the in fact agreed upon the inclusion of this Mr. YATES. I yield. State. When the full force of govern­ word in the conference on last year's Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I under­ ment is brought to bear against an indi­ Mallory bill. No proponent of the bill stood, although I could have been wrong, vidual, the safeguards of the Constitu­ has yet given a satisfactory explanation that when the gentleman from New tion are vital to help him defend him­ as to why the agreement of the conferees York [Mr. LINDSAY], was speaking he self. Those who are guilty of crime must was not made a part of this bill. The maintained that when section 5(a) was be punished-but it is equally important, gentleman from Colorado stated that it violated it had the effect of depriving if not more so, that the innocent be should make no difference whether a de­ the person who violated it, or the prose­ protected. fendant be held for 2 minutes or 10 hours cution of the fruits of the violation The safeguards of our Constitution in determining the admissibility of a which would presumably, in a hypo­ have been placed under severe test of re­ confession. He might have gone further thetical case, be the confession which cent years. It would be well for us to and included months or years for that was obtained because of the violation of :fight efforts to undermine this cumula­ matter-for if this bill becomes law the rule 5(a). First, is that the situation? tive birthright of every American and to question of delay as such is no longer And, second, if it is that situation, is proclaim as frequently, as loudly, and pertinent in determining the admissi­ not that a sanction against the violation as insistently as we can, the need for bility of a confession. The sole question of rule 5(a) which would be removed if preserving such safeguards intact. with which the court would concern it­ we pass this bill without the word "un­ Doubters, who point to the use of the self would be whether the confession reasonable"? fifth amendment by hoodlums and were voluntary or whether it was based Mr. YATES. I disagree with the racketeers must realize, too, that in on coercion. The question of delay would statement that violation of rule 5 O:D eliminating the fifth amendment and only be pertinent on a question of the would accomplish what the gentleman thereby depriving the criminal of this use of coercion in obtaining a confession. has just said and what the gentleman protective provision, the innocent are de­ Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, will the from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] said. prived of it as well. The reasons which gentleman yield? It was the rule 5(b) which was proposed underlay the drafting of the fifth amend­ Mr. YATES. I yield. which would have done that in these ment and all the other amendments in Mr. WILLIS. As the gentleman from words, I submit, that no statement or the Bill of Rights of our Constitution are Colorado said, we do not reach rule confession in response to an interroga· as cogent today as they were when they 5 (a) . Rule 5 (a) still remains on the tion by an officer or agency of the Gov­ were originally conceived. books, as it always has. It is a rule of ernment shall be admissible in evidence Mr. Chairman, I see this bill as a blow procedure. The gentleman from New if the interrogation occurs while the de­ against the cause of individual liberty. York says there is no sanction to it. Well, fendant is held in custody in violation I shall vote against it. as far as I am concerned, put a sanction of the rule calling for arraignment Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I to it. But this is a rule of procedure. without unnecessary delay; and the rule rise in opposition to the pro forma The command upon the police to move was rejected. amendment. forward and do their duty according to Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the Mr. Chairman, with regard to the last the rule and to arraign promptly and gentleman yield? question which was asked and answered, 12884 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-. HOUSE July· 7. I would like to read to the committee Mr. YATES. In agreeing with the if I vote for this bilL, 1t wi1i not be based from a decision of the U.S. Court of Ap­ gentleman from Colorado, does the gen­ on taking a slap at them, but because. I peals under date of July 2, 1959. The tleman admit that the sole purpose of believe it to be good, sound, reasonable, Court in that case was composed of .Mr. the bill is to strike the word "unneces­ and valid legislation. Justice Burton, retired, Wilbur K. Mil­ sary" from the phrase "without unneces­ Now, no one in the world I believe ler, and Mr. Burger, circuit judges. I sary delay?" abhors mistreatment of· anybody more quote from page 4 of the advance sheets. Mr. McCULLOCH. I do not agree than I do, and I do want to see every Listen carefully, if you will, please: with that. I do not think that con­ person prosecuted given a fair trial. I We read the Mallory case as holding that clusion logically follows. have served as county attorney and as even a voluntary confession given by .a Mr. YATES. Of course it does. district judge. For about 10 years I prisoner during an unnecessary delay in ar­ Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, will practiced law. As a lawyer, I have raignment is inadmissible regardless- the gentleman yield? helped defend people charged with crime, And I stress this; now, listen, please­ Mr. McCULLOCH. I yield to the gen­ and I have helped to prosecute them, tleman from New York. and as I recall this particular rule laid regardless of whether the delay caused him Mr. LINDSAY. May I say that I ad­ down in the Mallory case is a departure to confess. · mire the way the distinguished ranking from what we have always known gen­ That paragraph should answer the minority member of the Committee on erally in English and American juris­ contention made by the distinguished the Judiciary has handled his arguments prudence. And, I can see · gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] today. He has been logical and lawyer­ for making a confession invalid unless it a contention made by the distinguished like. However, I must say I am puzzled is given involuntarily. The time element gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] by some aspects of the approach which is not the sole determining factor and and one or two others. the gentleman takes. If I wanted to sub­ should not be the sole determining fac­ I want to read three more lines to you jugate people I would not use bludgeons tor. It should have a bearing on it, and which should be reason enough why or other physical techniques. I would certainly, if there is unreasonable de­ clarification is needed in this field which simply lock them up and detain them. lay, the court and the jury, if it is ·a is so important to the protection of the That in and of itself can result in an in­ mixed question of fact and law, I am sure, citizens of this country. I quote from voluntary confession; is that not true? will give great weight to that question of page 5 of the advance sheets of the deci­ Mr. McCULLOCH. May I now answer delay in arraignment in determining the sion of July 2, Thursday last: the gentleman? No, it is not true, and validity of a confession or statement. A confession given during a period of nec­ the gentleman does not have a proper But, just delay alone should not be the essary delay and arraignment is not inadmis­ parallel in his approach to this case, be­ sole determining factor as to whether it sible because that period was followed by a cause if this bill becomes law, if it be is voluntary or involuntary. period of unnecessary delay. established that the unnecessary delay in Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chair­ Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chair­ arraignment resulted in a confession, man, will the gentleman yield? man, will the gentleman yield? then the court may hold it to be inadmis­ Mr. MORRIS of Oklahoma. I yield &ible. That is the central point in the to the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. McCULLOCH. I yield to the bill. gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. In con­ Mr. MORRIS of Oklahoma. Mr. nection with what the gentleman has Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. When the Chairman, I move to strike out the req­ stated about the Supreme Court, I would Mallory decision was rendered, it was uisite number of words. like to point out that this Congress, after based on rule 5(a) which said that the Mr. Chairman, this is a rather difficult the Jenks decision, laid down certain arrested person without unnecessary de­ -decision for me personally to make in rules and regulations concerning the ex­ lay should be taken to the nearest mag­ voting on this bill. There are good argu­ amination of documents in the posses­ istrate. ments both ways. However, I am going sion of the Government. The Supreme Mr. McCULLOCH. That is right. to listen to the very last, and my present Court recently, in two or three decisions, Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. It had thinking is I shall vote for the bill. followed the law that was enacted by the nothing whatsoever to do with whether I voted against H.R. 3 because I did Congress. Now, the only object and pur­ or not the confession was voluntary, not believe it was the best type of legis­ pose of this legislation is to try to point whether he was compelled to give it; but lation, although it might have been. I out that we do not approve of the part the question was whether there was an think I shall vote for this bill, but in vot­ which would prohibit the admission of a unnecessary delay in violation of rule ing for it I want the RECORD to show that confession when voluntarily made and 5 (a). It was out of that that the great the purpose of my vote will not be to before they could get him to a magis­ confusion arose as to what "unnecessary take a slap at the Supreme Court. trate, and that is the only object and delay" may mean. The Supreme Court I do not agree with a number of deci­ purpose as is provided in the statute. of the United States had gradually cut sions of the Supreme Court; in fact, they Mr. MORRIS of ·oklahoma. I thank down the time; first in the McNab case, have had a hard time agreeing among the gentleman for his contribution. and finally in the Mallory case down to themselves when you look at the 5-to-4 May I conclude by saying this? If less than 8 hours. So the question re­ decisions they have rendered. But I cer­ officers desire to put pressure on a pris­ solved in the purpose of this bill is that tainly believe their purpose is high, pa­ oner, either physically or psychologically we have dealt with the unnecessary de­ triotic and valid, just the same as I be­ or in some other manner, they can do it lay as set forth in the Mallory decision lieve that our purpos·es as a Congress are within 30 minutes; they could do it itself as it relates to 5(a). Now, all we high, patriotic and valid. I think the within an hour. So in my judgment this say is it will not be inadmissible solely same thing about the Presidents of the proposition of saying that delay alone because of the delay in taking the ar­ United States we have had regardless of destroys the validity of a confession is rested person before a Commissioner. whether they have been Democrats or not sound; as a matter of fact, we are That deals with the question of the ele­ Republicans. I have not agreed with a getting into a question that should be ment of time. It is very apparent we number of policies of the present admin­ determined by the circumstances of each are not disturbing 5(a) in any manner istration, particularly their farm policy, case and not by the time element alone. whatsoever. If there is unnecessary and others, but I do not impugn the mo­ And then this final thought and I delay, then it is still a question for the tives of the President of the United shall conclude. I do believe this; I be­ court. The ontr thing we say in this bill States. I believe he is doing the best he is that the fact there is a delay should lieve that we should give careful con­ can to be a good Chief Officer, a good sideration to the proposition of p~ssing not within itself be the deciding factor. President of the United States, and that some law separate from this bill that Mr. McCULLOCH. I agree with the he wants to serve the people honestly and would make it absolutely certain or as statement of the gentleman from Colo­ well. certain as we could make it, that no rado. That is our purpose here to serve hon­ third degree or other coercive method Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the estly and well and I think it is the pur­ would ever be used against a prisoner. gentleman yield? pose of the Supreme Court of the United Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, I do Mr. McCULLOCH. I yield to the gen­ States. So, as I say, I have disagreed not think there are any amendments to tleman from Illinois. with them on a number of occasions, }?ut be proposed. I am wondering if we 1959 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD- HOUSE 12885 could agr.ee on closing time on this bill to the realities and a little common who has incurred local displeasure be­ and all amendments thereto. Mr. sense. cause of differences of opinion-it might Chairman, I ask unanimous consent That is what the law of evidence is­ be on the matter of civil rights-is ar­ that debate on this bill and all amend­ common sense. It is the common sense rested by the police. He is treated with­ ments thereto close at 4 o'clock. of many little and big people in many out blows or even harsh words. He is The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection generations and in various countries, put in a cell and when he is locked up to the request of the gentleman from shifted out in the experiences of man­ he is immediately told that he does not Louisiana? kind, and refined into a system of rules have to talk unless he wants to, and if There was no objection. most calculated to advance the cause of he does talk his statement may be used The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog­ justice and protect as far as humanly against him. Then his jailors walk nizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. possible against the chance of injustice. away-nothing harsh, nothing in the RHODES]. Thus we have the prohibition against way of blows. Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chair­ hearsay evidence because in the expe­ All John Smith has to suffer is im­ man, I take this time to try to get more riences of mankind mere gossip was prisonment, solitary imprisonment, day information on this bill than I now found by judges and by litigants to fur­ after day, possibly week after week. But have. nish an insecure basis for the adminis­ you say he has a remedy-a writ of ha­ First I think it would be in order to tration of justice. Thus we have pro­ beas corpus. You point with pride to compliment the Members of the House, hibition against statements in the the fact that you cannot in the United particularly the members of the Com­ nature of confessions that are wrung States keep a man locked up indefinitely mittee on the Judiciary, on what I think by torture, by intimidation or by induce­ and without proper cause. So you would has been a very fine debate. I feel that ment, and are not voluntary. say all John Smith has to do, if he is the Committee on the Judiciary has in It is well that we remember these innocent and held without cause, is to this particular bill and in this debate things and realize before it is too late get out a writ of habeas corpus. How added much to the legal annals of the that we are playing dangerously with right you are, and how carefully the country. Second, as to my position, I our heritage of an administration of authors of this bill closed that door on favor this bill in principle, but am hav­ justice as perfect as the experiences of John Smith. ing some difficulty with the specifics. mankind in many painful generations How did they close the door? By re­ I would like first to ask a question could make it. The cost of what is con­ fusing to include in the bill the simple which may seem very simple. templated in a pique in some quarters provision that on his arrest John Smith If this bill is adopted as it now is, at the Supreme Court of the United should be informed that he had the what would be the change in the state States is too fearful for me to contem­ right: to counsel. John Smith knows of the law? What would be the differ­ plate with any equanimity. nothing of law. If he had ever heard ence as to the state of the law after this STRIPS CITIZEN OF DIGNITY of habeas corpus, as probably he had bill is adopted than the state now is? The great lawyer and orator from Ten­ not, how in the world could he, locked I understand this bill would have the ef­ nessee told us that this bill took away up in a solitary confinement and not fect of amending rule 5 (a) without do­ nothing from any American citizen. I permitted to communicate with the out­ ing so specifically. In other words, in­ would say that it strips him to the bare side world, go about getting a writ of stead of attacking a misinterpretation skin of his dignity as a citizen and his habeas corpus? of rule 5 (a) in the Mallory case, this protections against practices that violate So John Smith finally gets the point. would attack the effect of the misinter­ the letter and the spirit of our Constitu­ The key to his cell is in his signature to pretation of attacking the apparent tion and are repugnant to civilized man­ a paper his jailor has ready for him to cause thereof. Is that about right? kind. It takes away a lot. sign. Maybe you or I, in John Smith's Mr. WILLIS. In my opinion, it would This is the first time in the history place, would have got the point sooner not. Rule 5 (a) is a rule of procedure of the United States that the Congress or maybe not until later. The gentle­ only. The Supreme Court in effect made seriously has sought to write into the law man from Illinois does not know. Some it a · rule of evidence which it was never that a police officer can take a citizen, people can fight hopeless imprisonment intended to be. This will continue it as can put him in a cell, can throw away the and loneliness longer than others. But a rule of procedure. So far as a change key and not release him until he has the gentleman from Illinois does know in the law is concerned, we are not signed a confession. That is exactly that this is not the kind of treatment changing any written act of Congress. what this bill says. that is intended as part of the birthright We would be interpreting the Mallory for any American. decision to mean that a confession freely If that is not what it is intended to and voluntarily made, without coercion, say then the authors of it certainly would JOHN SMITH IN COURT of any kind, either physical or psycho­ have accepted the word "reasonable." Then John Smith, having signed the logical, shall be admitted into evidence If they would not accept the word "rea­ paper, finally is brought into court. Did and that that confession shall not be sonable" what was in their mind? That he sign the paper? Yes. Was he told stricken down solely, exclusively because there could be unreasonable delay in he could sign or not and if he did sign there was delay between the time of ar­ arraignment, so that the police on their the paper would it be used against him? rest and taking the man to a committing own suspicion, whim, or whatever moti­ Yes. Was he beaten up, or threatened? magistrate. vation could put a man in a cell and leave No. So the court accepts the confes­ Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Actually, him there day after day, week after week, sion, and as there is no other evidence the only sanction now existing under month after month if you will, and the of much consequence the verdict is guilty rule 5 (a) is a substantive sanction in only way he could get out would be by and the sentence may be anything from that as the Court has interpreted the signing a confession. imprisonment to death. effect of rule 5 (a) , any confession made There is nothing complex in the lan­ "But," protests John Smith, "they kept or obtalined during the course of a viola,­ guage of H.R. 4957. There is nothing me in that cell for a year, and they tion thereof is stricken down. Since the that requires a legal education to under­ kept me alone in the cell, and they effect of the bill is to amend rule 5(a), stand. It says in plain language that a wouldn't permit me to talk or write to I would much prefer it to be done di­ confession must be accepted by the court my friends." rectly instead of indirectly, as this bill as a voluntary confession, regardless of "Sorry," says the court, "but under does it. the length of time the prisoner was held this law Congress has passed I am not The CHAIRMAN. The time of the incommunicado by the police, pro­ permitted to exclude your confession gentleman from Arizona [Mr. RHODES] vided the prisoner was told that he did solely because you have been locked up has expired. not have to talk unless he so desired and for a year and kept from communicating The Chair recognizes the gentleman if he did talk what he said would be held with your family and friends. If I were from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA]. against him. allowed to exercise my own common Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair-. HOW IT WOULD OPERATE sense, and apply my own legal reasoning_. man, it has been delightful to spend an Here is exactly how it could operate, I would certainiy say that the fact you afternoon with the legal lights of the and I defy anyone to say differently: had been locked up in that manner, and· Congress, but I would like to get ·down John Smith, a man innocent of crime kept from your friends and family, could 12886 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. ~ HOUSE July 7 cast considerable doubt on the voluntary bill will pass as it passed overwhelmingly to indicate clearly what effect the Con­ nature of your confession. But Congress last year. I certainly will not be one to gress intends rule 5 (a) to have as a rule has shut the door alike on you, Mr. support it. of evidence. That is all this bill does. Smith, and on me." Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance It does not prevent time from being an element in the future in determining H.R. 4957 OPENS WIDE THE .DOOR of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog­ coercion, and therefore that an admis­ Mr. Chairman, I do not say that this nizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. sion is inadmissible. is what would happen in every case. It CRAMER]. The CHAffiMAN. The time of the might not happen often. Most police Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, quite gentleman from Florida has expired. officers are fine, God-fearing men who briefly in answer to the gentleman from Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, what is give their working years and their dedi­ Illinois [Mr. O'HARA], the situation involved here, at least on the surface, cated service to the protection of so­ which he described of detaining some­ is what would appear to be a conflict cie.ty, and the monetary rewards they one in jail and as a result of that the between the protection of an accused receive are woefully inadequate. But, person had to confess to get out. Un­ individual citizen on the one hand and Mr. Chairman, this could happen, and questionably, under this bill or under the protection of society in general on H.R. 4957 not only opens the door wide any rule of evidence, which this bill the other. Upon more searching anal­ open but extends an invitation to enter. could not abrogate, in such an instance, ysis, however, it will be seen that the I have great esteem for my distin­ of course, that confession would be in­ pending bill resolves the apparent con­ guished colleagues who have argued admissible. Why? Because it resulted flict in a manner which both protects with brilliant learning and I know with from coercion. Therefore, it would not society and not only preserves the in­ sincere conviction for the enactment of be admissible because it was coercive. dividual's right.8 to a prompt arraign­ this bill. But I am as certain as cer­ It was the result of coercive methods. ment, but confers upon him a new tainty itself that when the passions of It has been repeatedly stated by the statutory right which he does not now the time have quieted they will rejoice, proponents of the bill, and it is true that enjoy, viz, the right to be advised that should this bill fail of enactment, that if in fact the delay is of such a nature he cannot be compelled to make an in­ in the period of "swat the Supreme Court as to be coercive, then, of course, the criminating statement and that such of the United States" the Congress did admission would be ruled out as evi­ statement may be used against him. not undermine the administration of dence on the ground that it is involun­ It is impossible to understand the justice left us as a precious heritage by tary. There is nothing that this Con­ purpose and effect of the pending legis­ the experiences of mankind through the gress or this bill can do to change that lation without a complete knowledge of centuries. , situation. But, in my opinion, the the procedural and substantive facts in I earnestly hope that H.R. 4957 will Supreme Court confused two basic con­ the case of Mallory against United be defeated. cepts in coming to the result that they States, decided by the Supreme Court The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog­ . did in the Mallory case. First, the ques­ on June 24, 1957. nizes the gentleman .from Ohio [Mr. tion is the procedural requirement un- Mallory, who had been convicted of McCULLOCH]. der rule 5 (a) to bring an accused per­ rape, was in jail awaiting execution. Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, at son before a commissioner. I repeat, The decision reversed the conviction on the risk of repetition I would like to sup­ that is a procedural requirement. That the ground that the defendant's con­ plement the answer to the question pro­ is not a rule of evidence. The second fession was improperly admitted in evi­ pounded by the gentleman from Arizona question involved is the obtaining of dence and remanded the case to the [Mr. RHODES]. As I recall the question evidence through a confession. The trial court for a new trial. The prose­ which he directed to one of the members Court apparently lumped both of these cution, which had based its case largely of the committee, it was in effect, "How questions together despite the fact that on the confession, decided that without will this bill change existing law?" I the first question is purely procedural its use as evidence it would be impos­ repeat the five lines from the Court of and is a directive by the Congress to the sible to convict the defendant and ac­ Appeals decision of July 2, 1959, when arresting officer under the rule of crimi­ cordingly set him at liberty. Mr. Justice Burton was on the Court. It nal procedure. The Court ruled that Mallory's con­ is as follows: In other words, the Court with the fession was inadmissible as evidence be­ We read the Mallory case as holding that Mallory decision made a rule of evidence cause it was extracted from him by the even a voluntary cQnfession given by a and a rule of substantive law out of the police before he was arraigned. The prisoner during an unnecessary delay in ar­ rule of procedure, which was never in­ Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure re­ raignment 1s inadmissible regardless- tended by the Congress. I cannot be­ quire that a person under arrest with­ ! repeat- lieve that the Congress ever intended by out a warrant be taken "without un­ regardless of whether the delay caused him passing rule 5 (a) that when a confes­ necessary delay" before the nearest to confess. sion is voluntarily made and where there available commissioner or other com­ is no coercion whatsoever, and a man is mitment officer who shall inform the I would like to say to the Members of held for 5 hours or 7% hours, as was defendant of his right to retain counsel, the House, that it is my opinion that the situation in the Mallory case, I can­ his right to have a preliminary exam­ the bill before us, when it becomes a law, not believe it was the intention that a ination and his right to refuse to make will insure the confession to be admissi­ confessed rapist, even though there was a statement. The Court held that a ble in evidence, unless the unnecessary no coercion that entered into his con­ person could not be arrested upon sus­ delay caused the prisoner to make a con­ fession, should go scot-free solely be­ picion alone but only on "probable fession that he would not otherwise have cause he was held for 7% hours. The cause," that there was unnecessary de­ made. If the bill does nothing more objective of this bill is to prevent time­ lay in the arraignment, and that the than that, it will have been more than clock justice, as I said before, where the extraction of the confession before ar­ worth the time that we have spent here. court would just be saying that because raignment was a violation of the de­ The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog­ the person was held for 5 hours or 7 fendant's rights and therefore inadmis­ nizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. hours or 8 hours and where there is no sible as evidence. WAINWRIGHT]. coercion whatsoever and where he freely The reasoning of the Court is some­ Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, confessed and unquestionably is a rapist what obscure. Unquestionably, every it seems to me the principal question and has committed a heinous crime person arrested as a criminal suspect before the House today is not so much a against society, yet that person should is entitled to an arraignment without un­ matter of a technicality or a question of go free simply because the Congress necessary delay. However, from that it semantics. The question is whether one passed procedural rule 5 (a). I do not does not necessarily follow that every of the real treaSIUres that we have in this think that was the intention of the voluntary statement made by the sus­ country vis-a-vis the Sovi.et Union, our Congress. This bill, of course, has the pect before arraignment should be in­ liberty, our liberty from the police state, purpose of correcting that situation. validated for evidentiary purposes. Mal­ will be further reduced. Any encroach­ So I say to the gentleman from Ari­ lory's arraignment was, in my opinion, ment by the Congress of the United zona, in further answer to his question, unnecessarily delayed from 2:30 p.m., states seems to me rather astonishing that the objective and purpose of this when he. was -arrested, until the follow­ and rather a shame. Appar~ntly, this bill is to clarify the Mallory decision and ing morning. However-, at no time did 1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 12887 he or his counsel contend that any of his or other "judicial officer." Such a pro­ conference committee, included in this four separate confessions were made un­ vision does not change the law which in­ proposed legislation when it was de­ der mental or physical duress or coer­ validates confessions extracted under bated-as H.R. 11477-in the 85th cion. On the contrary, less than 2 hours duress by threat, promise of reward or Congress, namely, that if there is any after his arrest Mallory voluntarily other improper inducement or coercion. delay in arraignment of an arrested per­ agreed to take a lie detector test. While Such a provision of law cannot possibly son before a magistrate, it must be "rea­ two other suspects were being examined injure either a guilty person or an inno­ sonable" delay, and secondly, that any the test was delayed until approximately cent person, and most certainly can and delay in arraignment is to be considered 8 p.m. During the course of this test he if enacted will protect society against as an element in determining the volun­ made his first voluntary confession. confessed dope peddlers, thieves, rapists, tary or involuntary nature of such state­ Soon after, he repeated his confession to murderers, and other crooks and crimi­ ments or confessions. The proponents other officers, and at 10 p.m. the police nals who prey upon their fellow citizens. of this bill insist that of course they do made an effort to reach a commissioner It is time someone had a little regard for not intend to permit unreasonable for arraignment. Failing in this, Mal­ the rights of society in general as well delay in arraignment, and that the delay lory consented voluntarily to an exam­ as the rights of the individual citizen. would be considered in determining ination by the deputy coroner, who found Individual liberty is no license for the whether any confession given during the no evidence of physical or psychologi­ transgression of the rights and safety of period prior to arraignment is voluntary cal coercion. Mallory then repeated his others. or coerced. I must ask them, therefore, voluntary confession for the third time, The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog­ "Why have you refused to insert the two and about 11:30 p.m. dictated the con­ nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. protective provisions that the Senate and fession to a stenographer. DAWSON]. the conference committee included last There is no law on the statute books Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge year? Why do you insist on a bill which which invalidates a voluntary confession the House to reject H.R. 4957. This bill has no limits placed on the length of by reason of delay in arraignment, but weakens the rights and liberties of every delay in arraignment?" the Court's decision will in future cases American. It opens the door to unre­ However, irrespective of whether those have the same effect as a criminal stat­ strained detention of suspects by the provisions are included, I think that this ute. Federal police officers will have no police for prolonged periods of time. It bill is unnecessary, and also that it is power to interrogate a criminal suspect encourages the use of third degree harmful to the constitutional protec­ to determine whether or not there is methods to extract confessions from tions of all of us against the arbitrary probable cause of guilt before arraign­ poor, uneducated or youthful suspects exercise of police powers. ment, and prosecuting attorneys will be who are not aware of their rights. It Sixteen years have passed since the afraid to use prearraignment confessions puts enormous power of pressure and Supreme Court's decision in McNabb v. as evidence to establish their case before oppression into the hands of police. In United States, 318 U.S. 332 <1943), when the jury. Neither can a Federal police sum, it violates the spirit and, I submit, it first enunciated the principle that it officer safely arrest a criminal suspect the letter of the Bill of Rights of our reapplied in the Mallory case. The Court until he knows that a commissioner is Constitution. in the McNabb case said-pages 343- readily available and until he knows that The proponents of this bill say it is 344-that the rule of arraignment with­ he has sufficient direct or substantial intended to clarify the Supreme Court's out unnecessary delay, "requiring th:::t.t evidence to establish probable cause be­ decision in Mallory v. United States, the police must with reasonable prompt­ fore the commissioner, even though the 354 U.S. 449 (1957), and to pro­ ness show legal cause for detaining ar­ suspect may have voluntarily admitted vide new safeguards to protect the rested persons, constitutes an important his guilt. Recent decisions in other rights of arrested persons.. As a mat­ safeguard-not only in assuring protec­ cases by the lower Federal courts have ter of fact, however, the bill would not tion for the innocent but also in secur­ done little to clarify or crystallize the clarify, but rather would overrule the ing conviction of the guilty by methods situation. Court's decision. It would not increase that commend themselves to a progres­ The decision has the effect of writing protection against police abuse, but in­ sive and self-confident society. For this a new rule of evidence. It is interesting stead it would greatly reduce the pro­ procedural requirement checks resort to to recall that the Supreme Court's com­ tection which the law now gives to ar­ those reprehensible practices known as mittee on the Federal rules once con­ rested persons. the 'third degree' which, though uni­ sidered the advisabilty of excluding con­ In its Mallory decision, the Supreme versally rejected as indefensible, still fessions secured by interrogation when Court reiterated the long established find their way into use. It aims to avoid the defendant was held in custody in principle contained in rule 5 (a) of the all the evil implications of secret inter­ violation of the arraignment rule of no Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. rogation of persons accused of crime." "unnecessary delay." In fact, one of the This rule requires that an arrested per­ The experience with the rule of the members of the committee drafted rule son shall be brought before the nearest McNabb and Mallory cases during these !Hb) in that form. The full committee available committing magistrate with­ years has not shown any hamstringing rejected that draft, and the rules, omit­ out unnecessary delay. The Supreme of law enforcement or any breakdown of ting that provision, were allowed to be­ Court held that if the police violate this law and order. The fears expressed by come effective without Congressional ob­ rule, and extract a confession or other law-enforcement omcers following the jection. This raises the question, "Could damaging evidence from the arrested Mallory decision have proven to be the result this legislation seeks to ac­ person during the period of illegal de­ largely illusory. The Mallory rule has complish be accomplished by a simple tention, such confession or evidence may not seriously impeded the police in the amendment to the Rules of Criminal not be used against him. This is not a solution of crimes. The fact is that Procedure?" My answer to that is, when new rule. There are similar rules for they are now solving crimes without in doubt, legislate. It is highly improb­ evidence obtained through illegal wire­ violating the law requiring prompt ar­ able that the Supreme Court will re­ taps and unreasonable searches and raignment. pudiate its own decision by changing its seizures. The basic issue in this bill is whether own rules. This bill would change that rule. It police omcers should-be allowed to arrest I want to preserve the right of prompt would add a new section 3501 to the a person on suspicion and thereafter arraignment, but I also want to preserve Criminal Code-18 U.S.C.-to provide while he is in police detention to seek to the right of police omcers to interrogate that confessions or evidence shall not be establish '"'probable cause" ~or the arrest. the suspect and the right of the prose­ inadmissible solely because of delay But arrests without probable cause are cuting attorney to use voluntary confes­ in arraigning the arrested person. Such already forbidden by the fourth amend­ sions as evidence against the suspect, a drastic change in the procedure for ment to the Constitution. A civilized both in proving probable cause before bringing arrested persons within the pro­ society like ours, whose basic Constitu­ the commissioner and in establishing tective arms of the judiciary certainly tion forbids arrests without probable guilt before a jury. H.R. 4957 states does not protect arrested persons, but cause, cannot afford to invest police offi­ simply that "statements or confessions rather reduces their protection against cers with the power to make such ar• ' or other evidence shall not be inadmissi­ police abuse. rests and then to use the fruits of such ble solely because of delay in taking an Indeed, this bill does not even include illegal action to secure convictions of.J arrested person before a commissioner two provisions that the Senate, and the their victim. 12888 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 7 I do not put much stock in the state­ Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask for Johansen Minshall Short Johnson, Md: Mitchell Sikes ments by the proponents of this bill that the yeas and nays. Johnson, Wis. Montoya. Siler the arrested person would be protected The yeas and nays were ordered. Jonas · Moore Simpson, Ill. against coerced confessions even if this Jones, Ala. Morris, N.Mex. Simpso]:l, Pfl.. The question was taken and there Jones, Mo. Morris, Okla. Smith, Calif. bill becomes law. It is only in extreme were-yeas 138, nays 261, not voting 35, Judd Mumma Smith, Miss. cases that the poor, uneducated, or as follows: Kearns Murray Smith, Va. youthful suspect can produce evidence, [Roll No. 109] Kee Natcher Spence besides their own words, to prove co­ Keith Nelsen Springer YEA8-138 Kilday Norblad Steed ercion or brutality, whereas the police Addonizio Goodell O'Brien, Ill. Kilgore Norrell Stratton officers often can present many wit­ Anfuso Granahan O'Brien, N.Y. King, Utah O'Konskl Stubblefield nesses who will back up their story that Ashley Gray O'Hara, Ill. Kitchin Osmers Taber Barrett Green, Oreg. O'Hara, Mich. Knox Ostertag Teague, Calif. they indulged only in "polite inquiry" Bass, N .H Green, Pa. O'Neill Lafore Passman Teague, Tex. during the period of illegal detention. I Bennett, Mich. Grifil.ths Oliver Laird Patman Thompson, Tex. would much rather put my trust in a Blatnik Halpern Pfost Landrum Pelly Thomson, Wyo. Boland Hays Philbin Lane Perkins Thornberry rule which forbids the use of any state­ Bolling Healey Porter Langen Pilcher Tollefson ments or evidence obtained by the police Bowles Hogan Price Lankford Pillion Trimble from the suspect during the period of an Boyle Holifield Prokop Latta Plrnie Tuck illegal detention marked by "unneces­ Brademas Holland Puclnski Lennon Poage Utt Brown, Mo. Holtzman Quigley Lipscomb Poff Van Pelt sary delay" in their arraigning an ar­ Burke, Mass. Irwin R 3.ndall Loser Preston Van Zandt rested person. Byrne,Pa. Johnson, Calif. Ray McCormack Quie Vinson Rule 5 (a) of the Federal Rules of Cahill Johnson, Colo. Reuss McCulloch Rains Wallhauser Carnahan Karsten Rhodes, Ariz. McDonough Rees, Kans. Walter Criminal Procedure in its present form Carter Karth Rhodes, Pa. McGinley Rlehlman Watts spells out a basic protection of our con­ Celler Kastenmeler Rodino Mcintire Riley Weaver stitutional rights to freedom from loss Clark Kelly Rogers, Tex. McMillan Rivers, Alaska Westland Coad Keogh Rooney McSween Rivers, S.C. Wharton of liberty without due process of law. Cohelan King, Calif. Roosevelt Mack, Wash. Roberts Whitener We should not water down that con­ Conte Kirwan Rostenkowski Mahon Robison Whitten stitutional guarantee by destroying the Cook Kluczynskl Santangelo Mailliard Rogers, Colo. Widnall Curtis, Mo. Kowalski Saund Marshall Rogers, Fla. Williams protection furnished to arrested suspects Daddario Lesinski Saylor Martin Roush Willis under rule 5(a). Daniels Levering Shelley Mason Rutherford Wilson I urge that this bill be defeated. Dawson Libonati Shipley Matthews St. George Winstead The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog­ Delaney Lindsay Sisk May Schenck Wright Dent McFall Slack Meader Scherer Young nizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Denton McGovern Smith, Iowa Merrow Schwengel Younger WILLIS] to close debate. Dingell Machrowicz Staggers Michel Scott Zablocki Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, I will not Dolllnger Mack, Dl. Sulllvan Milliken Selden Donohue Madden Teller Mllls Sheppard take the balance of the time. I think Dooley Magnuson Thompson, N.J. we have talked enough about this bill, Dorn,N.Y. Metcalf Toll NOT VOTING-35 and I believe we have all made up our Dulski Meyer Udall Anderson, Forand Morrison Dwyer Miller, Clem Ullman Mont. Frazier Moulder minds. I hope the proponents will pre­ Farbsteln Miller, Vanlk Auchincloss Hechler Powell vail. Fino George P. Wainwright Bailey Hoffman, Mich. Rabaut The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Flynn Monogan Wampler Brooks, La. Horan Reece, Tenn. Fogarty Moorhead Wier Buckley Jensen Rogers, Mass. Committee rises. Frelinghuysen Morgan Wolf Burdick Kasem Smith, Kans. Accordingly the Committee rose; and Fridel Moss Yates Canfield Kilburn Taylor the Speaker having resumed the chair, Gallagher Multer Zelenka Chelf McDowell Thomas Mr. METCALF, Chairman of the Com­ Garmatz Murphy com.n Macdonald Thompson, La. Giaimo Nix corbett Miller, N.Y. Wets mittee of the Whole House on the State Diggs Moeller Withrow of the Union, reported that that Commit­ NAY8-261 tee, having had under consideration the Abbitt Brooks, Tex. Fenton So the motion to recommit was Abernethy Broomfield Fisher rejected. bill

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

Speech of Senator Hubert H. Humphrey up f-or a platform and for a program, and happening in the Democratic Party in this who will fight even though the odds are State. In this respect, I am happy to say, in Kenosha, Wis.,. on June 14 at a Tes· against him. He is a man of deep sym­ the Wisconsin story and the Mfnnesota story are very much alike. timonial Dinner for the Honorable Wal· pathy and understanding who knows the Fifteen years ago-, both of our States were problems of the little people. He has dominated by Republicans. They held both · ter Molinaro, Speaker of the Wisconsin deep feeling for their complex problems Senate seats, and virtually all of the con­ Assembly and for the complex society in which we gressional seats. They controlled the gov­ live. He believes that government ernorship and both houses of the State leg- should be administered so as to lighten islature. · EXTENSION OF REMARKS their load and burden both taxwise and Well, things have changed for the Demo­ OJ' cratic Party in Minnesota and in Wisconsin• . otherwise. Also while fighting their bat- In Minnesota, we now control both Senate BON. GERALD T. FLYNN ties he recognizes the needs of business seats. Instead of having one or two Demo­ oF wiscoNsiN and industry and knows the necessity of cratic Congressmen, we now have four. We IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES having a set of laws. that Will permit in­ hold the governorship, and one house of the dustry to operate at a profit. He is truly State legislature.· Tuesday, July 7, 1959 conscious of all segments of our society Yes, things have changed in Minnesota­ FLYNN. Mr. Speaker, I was as well as all of the problems that we but no more than they have in Wisconsin. Mr. You have written a record here that Demo­ privileged to return to my home district face, and his record is one of constant crats the Nation over can envy and be proud on the 14th of June to attend in the battles to improve our present day living of. city of. Kenosha, Wis., a testimonial din- conditions for all classes of people in You have a Democratic Senator for the ner in honor of Speaker of the Assembly the Nation. I was deeply impressed by fil'st time in 21 years-a courageous and able of the Wisconsin Legislature. George the speech which he gave, and althougll Senator you can be mighty proud of-BILL MolinaroL George Molinaro is an old I have not endorsed or personally come PROXMIP.E. and dear friend of. mine and was my out in favor of any candidate for the From being totally blacked out of repre­ sentation in Congress in 1946, you have won good friend and counselor in the days . Democratic presidential nomination, I 5 of the 10 congressional seats-inciuding· · when I served in the State senate at do feel that Senator HUMPHREY would, this First Congressional District now happily Madison, Wis. The ability and. leader- if chosen, be an extremely good ca:ndi­ and effectively represented by an outstand­ ship of George Molinaro has been recog- date and one of whom the party could ing new Congressman,_GERRY FLYNN. nized by his Democratic colleagues for be proud. I, of course, recognize that You control the governorship for the first when the Democrats took over the Wis- the Democratic Party has several other time in 25 years, and I'm proud to share consin Assemoly for the first time in 24 candidates, each of whom would do a the platform with the man who broke that years, they immediately elected him as creditable job and would make both the Republican jinx, your great ·Governor and my good friend, Gaylord Nelson. speaker of that body. The home com- party and the Nation proud of the pre­ But the symbol-and perhaps, too, the munity of Gem:ge Molinaro turned out gram and the platform which they would secret-of your success. may be found in the en masse. There was business and labor, run upon. I would like, however, to ex­ story of the man you and I honor tonight. farmer and friend; they all joined tend in the RECORD the speech which was the speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, hands, over 900 strong, to wish him delivered by Senator HUMPHREY in Ken­ Georg_e Molinaro. well and to congratulate him on his osha, Wis., on the evening of June 14 at For when George Molinaro first became an assemblyman in 1946. the State legislature fine record of achievement. It was my the testimonial dinner for George Mo­ was a mighty lonely place for Democrats. privilege to say a. few words to express linaro, speaker of the Assembly of the In fact, there were only 11 other Democrats my deep feelings and in recognition of State of Wisconsin. The speech follows: to keep him company in the house. the fine and outstanding :record· which ow NATIONAL GoALs I wonder 1! George Molinaro--or any of the . George has carved for himself in the other 11 Democrats who sat with him in history of Wisconsin politics, and as a · (Remarks of Senator HUBERT H. HuMPHREY those bleak days of 1947 ever dreamed that leader of Wisconsin citizens and as a at testimonial dinner for Speaker Molinaro, a little more than a decade later, the Demo­ man who has stood on all issues for that Kenosha, Wis., June 14) crats would. actually control the house, and h · h · ~ h It is natural for me to feel at home here that your neighbor, George Mollnaro, would w lC IS rig t and proper for the people in Wisconsin, for this i's home territory for hold the powerful and respected post of whom he represents_ me. Speak~r of the Wisconsin Assembly. How At this dinner. the enthusiastic crowd Minnesotans and Wisconsinites are used to many of you here tonight thought that could was addressed by one of the outstanding - talking to each other as neighbors talk over happen in such a short time?' ' Democrats of. our day. ·1 speak of the a back fence--and the· fence between our two When a man can, by hard work and sheer Honorable HUBERT H. HUMPHREY who is States really might as- well not exist, judging nierit, work hia way up from a Kenosha con­ serving in the U.S. senate as the senior f:t:om t~e friendly reception the people of stable to one of the highest posts in the s t f th · hbo · State f Wisconsin have given me during these past State, the party that gave that man the ena or rom e neig rmg 0 2 days. I have really been treated like one chance to rise is not only a vigorous party, Minnesota. I believe, as do so m.any in of the home folks. it~ a ~eat party. the Midwest, that Senator HUMPHREY is a One thing that has given me a feeling of ·And so when I salute you, Mr. Speaker . man of princip..!._e, a man who will stand being at home ln Wlsconsfn Is what's been Molinaro, I salute eve;-y Democrat in Wis-