Allen v. Bannan

• Decision Date: 20 May 1964
• Docket Number: No. 15427.,15427.
• Citation: 332 F.2d 399
• Parties: Richard ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William H. BANNAN, Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

332 F.2d 399 (1964)

Richard ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William H. BANNAN, Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15427.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

May 20, 1964.

Richard Allen, in pro per.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., George E. Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for appellee.

Before CECIL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and PECK, District Judge.

HARRY PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The undisputed background facts may be summarized as follows:

On the morning of November 3, 1957, a fire occurred in a house in Grand Rapids, Michigan, resulting in the death of one of the inhabitants. That same day petitioner was taken into custody by the police and questioned concerning the fire. The next day petitioner consented to a polygraph test. This test indicated deception, and interrogation was resumed that evening. Further interrogation took place on November 5, and that afternoon petitioner admitted that he had set the fire. The next morning he was taken to the prosecuting attorney's office where he dictated and signed a statement to that effect. That afternoon, November 6, petitioner was taken before a police magistrate.

At his trial petitioner pleaded not guilty. During the trial his statements were admitted into evidence. The jury found petitioner guilty of murder and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Petitioner's application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was denied. The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, 364 U.S. 934, 81 S.Ct. 382, 5 L.Ed.2d 367, and a petition for rehearing, 365 U.S. 825, 81 S.Ct. 700, 5 L.Ed.2d 704. Subsequently, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This was denied for failure to exhaust state remedies, and this Court affirmed in an unpublished order. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, vacated the judgment of this Court and remanded the case to the District Court for a hearing on the merits. 370 U.S. 725, 82 S.Ct. 1297, 8 L.Ed.2d 802.

After a hearing the District Court again denied the petition for habeas corpus. The District Judge then issued a certificate of probable cause, and the case is now before us.

The District Court found that petitioner was arrested without a warrant on November 3, 1957, and not taken before a magistrate until November 6; that statements obtained from petitioner during this detention formed the basis of his conviction; and that petitioner was a mature man, familiar with police methods, and was not subjected to any excessive physical or psychological pressures during his detention.

The District Court concluded that, under all the facts, the statements of petitioner made during this detention were voluntary, and therefore their admission into evidence did not violate the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This appeal poses the question of the admissibility of a confession obtained during an unlawful detention. It is well established that in the federal courts such a confession is inadmissible, without even reaching the question of voluntariness. McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819; Upshaw v. United States, 335 U.S. 410, 69 S.Ct. 170, 93 L.Ed. 100; Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L. Ed.2d 1479. The Supreme Court has made it clear, however, that this is a rule of evidence in the federal courts and not a constitutional limitation upon the state courts. Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 600-601, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037; Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 476, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469; Gallegos v. Nebraska, 342 U.S. 55, 63, 72 S.Ct. 141, 96 L.Ed. 86.

The Mallory rule is based on Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requiring that a federal prisoner be taken before a Commissioner "without unnecessary delay." This holding has not been extended to proceedings in state courts upon any federal constitutional ground. In state court proceedings the test is whether the confessions were admitted in accordance with the standards of admissibility required of the states by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Essentially this is a question of whether the confession was voluntary. This issue must be determined from all the circumstances. Obviously the fact that the confession was obtained during an unlawful detention will be one of the considerations in determining voluntariness. See Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513; Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 83 S.Ct. 917, 9 L.Ed.2d 922; Culombe v. Connecticut, supra; Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 81 S.Ct. 1541, 6 L.Ed.2d 948. In the Culombe case there is an exhaustive treatment of this entire subject by Justice Frankfurter.

Federal due process has been held not to require arraignment in state courts within four days or an even longer period on penalty of exclusion of an interim confession. Gallegos v. Nebraska, supra; United States ex rel. Glinton v. Denno, 309 F.2d 543 (C.A.2), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 938, 83 S.Ct. 886, 9 L.Ed.2d 769; United States v. Sailer, 309 F.2d 541 (C.A.6), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 835, 83 S.Ct. 1884, 10 L.Ed.2d 1057.

The ultimate question to be determined on this appeal is whether or not petitioner's confession was coerced in violation of the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying the standards set forth in Haynes v. Washington, supra, Lynumn v. Illinois, supra, and Culombe v. Connecticut, supra, we hold that the facts of this case establish no such violation. We concur with the District Judge that under the evidence here presented "the statements were not obtained by physical force or subtle psychological pressure, but were given freely, that their use in evidence did not offend due process."

Petitioner relies upon the Michigan statute, Section 764.13 of the Compiled Laws of Michigan, M.S.A. § 28.872, which, like Section 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires arraignment "without unnecessary delay." The District Judge affirmatively found that there was an unreasonable delay in taking petitioner before a magistrate, in violation of this statute. However, as held in Stein v....