Government of Virgin Islands v. Solis, 14624.

• Citation: 334 F.2d 517
• Decision Date: 24 June 1964
• Docket Number: No. 14624.,14624.
• Parties: GOVERNMENT OF the VIRGIN ISLANDS v. Hipolito Rivera SOLIS, Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

334 F.2d 517 (1964)

GOVERNMENT OF the VIRGIN ISLANDS
v.
Hipolito Rivera SOLIS, Appellant.

No. 14624.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued January 29, 1964.

Decided June 24, 1964.

334 F.2d 518

William J. Butler, Jr., St. Croix, Virgin Islands and John F. James, St. Croix, V. I., for appellant.

Almeric L. Christian, St. Thomas, V. I., for appellee.

Before MARIS, STALEY and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.

STALEY, Circuit Judge.

The appellant, together with his brother, was tried and convicted of first degree murder in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. His appeal from a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment challenges the admission into evidence of a confession elicited from him during the period between the time he was taken into custody for questioning and his appearance before a judicial officer for a preliminary examination.

The body of the deceased was discovered in his home in the Christiansted country district of St. Croix during the early morning hours of February 4, 1962. The condition of the victim indicated that he had been subjected to a brutal attack and beating which resulted in his death. Police investigation failed to disclose responsibility for the crime. However, about one year later a woman claiming to be the common law wife of appellant's brother informed the police that on the night of the homicide the latter had told her that he and appellant were responsible for it. Based upon this information and lacking a warrant of arrest, two police officers were sent to the home of appellant on January 31, 1963. As stated in the brief of the Government, the officers "asked him to come with them to Headquarters in order that they might question him. He willingly complied."

At the trial the police officer in charge of the investigation testified that appellant arrived at headquarters in the presence of the two officers at 6:05 P.M. The officer further stated that appellant was questioned in the presence of himself and three other policemen in a room at headquarters until 7:15 P.M., and was then taken to Richmond penitentiary to stay overnight. The following day, February 1, 1963, he was returned to headquarters at 10:00 A.M., and, again according to the officer in charge, was questioned for fifteen minutes before lunch. The interrogation resumed at 5:00 P.M. for an hour and a half to two hours. During this latter period of questioning, one of the police officers recorded in longhand a statement of appellant in which he confessed responsibility for the homicide. The statement was written in Spanish as appellant could neither read nor write nor speak English. The officer testified that the statement was completed at 7:00 P.

334 F.2d 519

M., February 1, 1963, and was then signed by appellant who also initialed each page of it

It was only after he signed the incriminating statement that appellant was formally placed under arrest. A complaint charging him with murder in the first degree, dated February 2, 1963, was filed in the Municipal Court of St. Croix on February 4, 1963. It was not until 3:00 P.M. on February 4, approximately 93 hours after he was first taken to police headquarters for questioning, that appellant first appeared before the Municipal Court for a preliminary examination.¹

Appellant preserved his objection to the admissibility of the incriminating statement at each of the appropriate stages in this criminal proceeding. While not completely disavowing a theory of involuntary confession, his argument in this court is premised on Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requiring that an arrested person be taken "without unnecessary delay" before an appropriate judicial officer for a preliminary examination. Of the cases cited...