Akowskey v. United States
| Decision Date | 16 December 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 9157-8-9.,09 August 9157 |
| Citation | 158 F.2d 649 |
| Parties | AKOWSKEY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Bernard Margolius, of Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), for appellant.
Mr. Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Mrs. Grace B. Stiles, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and CLARK and MILLER, Associate Justices.
Appellant and a second defendant were convicted on three indictments charging housebreaking and larceny and the unauthorized use of two automobiles. The appellant prosecutes this appeal. By it, we are asked to determine the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in the McNabb case1 to confessions obtained from the appellant, who was arrested without a warrant shortly before 4:00 o'clock p. m. and taken immediately to police headquarters where he was questioned continuously for seven hours without being taken before the proper official for commitment.2
In the early morning of March 25, 1944 a restaurant in Southeast Washington was broken into and a large quantity of whiskey stolen. On the same night, two automobiles were taken from in front of the homes of their respective owners. Four days later, appellant, the second defendant and a third party were arrested in connection with the crimes on information received. The arrest was made between 3:30 and 4:00 o'clock p. m., and the parties were taken directly to police headquarters and booked on an open charge. No effort was made by the arresting officers to take the men before a committing magistrate until about 5:00 or 5:30 o'clock p. m. when an unanswered telephone call was made to the United States Commissioner's office.
From the time appellant was taken to headquarters until approximately midnight he was questioned continuously concerning the crimes during which time he repeatedly denied participation. Around midnight appellant made an oral confession which was reduced to writing between 1:45 and 2:45 o'clock a. m. This confession was agreed to by the second defendant. The third party arrested was released at this time.
Subsequent to this confession, the appellant and the second defendant were taken to the restaurant where they described to the police officers and restaurant proprietor how they had entered the premises and pointed out correctly the place from which the whiskey had been taken.
It is the contention of the Government that this last independent demonstration is a thing apart from the written confession and therefore relieves it of the rule of the McNabb case. But at the time of the later demonstration the defendant was still in custody, the demonstration immediately followed the written confession and if the confession was the result of illegal detention the later admissions were equally so. They must stand or fall together.
As in the McNabb decision, the Government's case here is dependent upon the admissions obtained from the accused and if that evidence is inadmissible the judgment must be reversed.
The record discloses a series of occurrences specifically condemned by the Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Refoule v. Ellis
...1, 3, 69 L.Ed. 131. This argument, however, was made and rejected in Gros v. United States, 9 Cir., 136 F.2d 878; Akowskey v. United States, 81 App.D.C. 353, 158 F.2d 649; and Bullock v. United States, 74 App.D.C. 220, 122 F.2d 213, and must receive the same treatment here. Such alleged ass......
-
Trilling v. United States, 13069
...was obtained before the beginning of the business day does not make it admissible. As we pointed out in Akowskey v. United States, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 353, 354, 158 F.2d 649, 650 "both by law and practice" a prisoner may be brought before a committing magistrate "at any hour." The prosecu......
-
Rettig v. United States
..."provided it was not induced by the illegal detention." We took a seemingly contrary position in Akowskey v. United States, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 353, 354, 158 F.2d 649, 650, holding simply that since the detention was illegal, "the incriminating statements of the accused were inadmissible ......
-
Greenwell v. United States, 18193.
...toward prompt presentment, taken for the purpose of securing statements from the accused as to the crime. Cf. Akowskey v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 353, 158 F.2d 649 (1946). Interviews by Government agents with accused persons in the absence of counsel may be employed to develop invest......