Mallory v. United States, No. 521

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFRANKFURTER
Citation1 L.Ed.2d 1479,77 S.Ct. 1356,354 U.S. 449
PartiesAndrew R. MALLORY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America
Decision Date24 June 1957
Docket NumberNo. 521

354 U.S. 449
77 S.Ct. 1356
1 L.Ed.2d 1479
Andrew R. MALLORY, Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES of America.

No. 521.
Argued April 1, 1957.
Decided June 24, 1957.

Mr. William B. Bryant, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.

Mr. Edward L. Barrett, Jr., Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for the respondent.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was convicted of rape in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and, as authorized by the District Code, the jury imposed a

Page 450

death sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting. 98 U.S.App.D.C. 406, 236 F.2d 701. Since an important question involving the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., was involved in this capital case, we granted the petition for certiorari. 352 U.S. 877, 77 S.Ct. 103, 1 L.Ed.2d 79.

The rape occurred at six p.m. on April 7, 1954, in the basement of the apartment house inhabited by the victim. She had descended to the basement a few minutes previous to wash some laundry. Experiencing some difficulty in detaching a hose in the sink, she sought help from the janitor, who lived in a basement apartment with his wife, two grown sons, a younger son and the petitioner, his nineteen-year-old half-brother. Petitioner was alone in the apartment at the time. He detached the hose and returned to his quarters. Very shortly thereafter, a masked man, whose general features were identified to resemble those of petitioner and his two grown nephews, attacked the woman. She had heard no one descend the wooden steps that furnished the only means of entering the basement from above.

Petitioner and one of his grown nephews disappeared from the apartment house shortly after the crime was committed. The former was apprehended the following afternoon between two and two-thirty p.m. and was taken, along with his older nephews, also suspects, to police headquarters. At least four officers questioned him there in the presence of other officers for thirty to forty-five minutes, beginning the examination by telling him, according to his testimony, that his brother had said that he was the assailant. Petitioner strenuously denied his guilt. He spent the rest of the afternoon at headquarters, in the company of the other two suspects and his brother a good part of the time. About four p.m. the three suspects were asked to submit to 'lie detector' tests, and they agreed. The officer in charge of the poly-

Page 451

graph machine was not located for almost two hours, during which time the suspects received food and drink. The nephews were then examined first. Questioning of petitioner began just after eight p.m. Only he and the polygraph operator were present in a small room, the door to which was closed.

Following almost an hour and one-half of steady interrogation, he 'first stated that he could have done this crime, or that he might have done it. He finally stated that he was responsible. * * *' (Testimony of polygraph operator, R. 70.) Not until ten p.m., after petitioner had repeated his confession to other officers, did the police attempt to reach a United States Commissioner for the purpose of arraignment. Failing in this, they obtained petitioner's consent to examination by the deputy coroner, who noted no indicia of physical or psychological coercion. Petitioner was then confronted by the complaining witness and '(p)ractically every man in the Sex Squad,' and in response to questioning by three officers, he repeated the confession. Between eleven-thirty p.m. and twelve-thirty a.m. he dictated the confession to a typist. The next morning he was brought before a Commissioner. At the trial, which was delayed for a year because of doubt about petitioner's capacity to understand the proceedings against him, the signed confession was introduced in evidence.

The case calls for the proper application of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, promulgated in 1946, 327 U.S. 821. That Rule provides:

'(a) Appearance before the Commissioner. An officer making an arrest under a warrant issued upon a complaint or any person making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available commissioner or before any other nearby officer

Page 452

empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States. When a person arrested without a warrant is brought before a commissioner or other officer, a complaint shall be filed forthwith.'

This provision has both statutory and judicial antecedents for guidance in applying it. The requirement that arraignment be 'without unnecessary delay' is a compendious restatement, without substantive change, of several...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1139 practice notes
  • Davis v. Burke, No. 16728.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 2, 1969
    ...the McNabb-Mallory doctrine. McNabb v. United States, 1943, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S. Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819; Mallory v. United States, 1957, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479. Lee was in his prison cell fifteen days after arrest on a warrant issued pursuant to indictment. Two special ag......
  • Corley v. United States, No. 07–10441.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 6, 2009
    ...or merely to narrow, the rule in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957), under which an arrested person's confession is inadmissible if given after an unreasonable delay in br......
  • United States v. Poole, No. 72-1533.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 17, 1974
    ...before presentment to a magistrate in violation of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957). A like contention was fully discussed and rejected in Pettyjohn v. United States, 136 U.S.App. D.C. 69, 419 ......
  • Kluger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 26124-83.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • September 11, 1984
    ...in violation of Federal statutes or Federal rules of procedure. United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251, 255 (1966); Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957); Upshaw v. United States, 335 U.S. 410 (1948); McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943); Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1137 cases
  • Davis v. Burke, No. 16728.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 2, 1969
    ...the McNabb-Mallory doctrine. McNabb v. United States, 1943, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S. Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819; Mallory v. United States, 1957, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479. Lee was in his prison cell fifteen days after arrest on a warrant issued pursuant to indictment. Two special ag......
  • Corley v. United States, No. 07–10441.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 6, 2009
    ...or merely to narrow, the rule in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957), under which an arrested person's confession is inadmissible if given after an unreasonable delay in br......
  • United States v. Poole, No. 72-1533.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 17, 1974
    ...before presentment to a magistrate in violation of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957). A like contention was fully discussed and rejected in Pettyjohn v. United States, 136 U.S.App. D.C. 69, 419 ......
  • Kluger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 26124-83.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • September 11, 1984
    ...in violation of Federal statutes or Federal rules of procedure. United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251, 255 (1966); Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957); Upshaw v. United States, 335 U.S. 410 (1948); McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943); Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Recent Legal Developments
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review Nbr. 34-4, December 2009
    • December 1, 2009
    ...v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976).Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. — (2008).Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. — (2008).Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957).Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964).McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943).Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. — ......
  • Reasonable Time and Real Time in Administrative Procedure
    • United States
    • Administration & Society Nbr. 4-1, May 1972
    • May 1, 1972
    ...thefall of 1965. 13. McNabb v. U.S., 318 U.S. 332, of March 1, 1943.14. 327 U.S. 821, Rule 5a, as of March 21, 1946.15. Mallory v. U.S., 354 U.S. 449 (1957).16. The average delay of those cases (personal injury) that were handled in regular order amounted to more than three years at the tim......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT