Tatum v. United States
| Citation | 114 US App. DC 188,313 F.2d 579 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 16881.,16881. |
| Parties | Carl A. TATUM, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Dickson R. Loos, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. Daniel Rezneck, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty. and Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. filed, were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., and John R. Schmertz, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time the record was filed, also entered appearances for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WASHINGTON, and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant drove the car involved in the Sheriff Road robbery-killing. Facts are stated in our opinion in Jackson v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 313 F. 2d 572 (1962).
Appellant was arrested shortly after 8:00 p.m. on January 17, 1961 and brought to the 14th precinct police station about 8:50. He was questioned for ten minutes in the lobby and denied all knowledge of the crime. He was then put in the cellblock. At 10:30 he was "booked". At 11:00 he was confronted by Coleman who had just made a written confession. Appellant still denied complicity. He made a non-incriminating statement at 11:15 p.m. He was questioned, partly in the absence of Coleman, from 11:15 till midnight. He still maintained his innocence. At 12:15 or 12:25 a.m. on January 18, while Detective Shirley was preparing a "lineup sheet," appellant is said to have agreed to confess. His written confession was completed at 3:00 a.m. He was brought before the United States Commissioner at 10:00 a.m.
The confession should have been excluded under the McNabb-Up-shaw-Mallory rule. F.R.Crim.P. 5(a); Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957). Probably when he denied all knowledge of the crime about 9:00 p.m. after ten minutes questioning, and certainly when he did so again upon confronting Coleman at 11:00 p.m., the police should have taken him before a magistrate or else released him. As we point out in Coleman v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 313 F.2d 576, a magistrate is regularly available at any hour. The circumstances in which appellant's statements were obtained on the morning of January 18 are inconsistent with the legislative purpose "to avoid all the evil implications of secret interrogation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ricks v. United States
...130-131, 259 F.2d 943, 945-946 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 959, 79 S.Ct. 800, 3 L.Ed.2d 767 (1959). And see Tatum v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 313 F.2d 579 (1962). In Ginoza v. United States, 279 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1960), the court, sitting en banc, ruled inadmissible a statem......
-
Jackson v. United States
...We are deciding today the appeals of these four. See Coleman v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 313 F.2d 576; Tatum v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 313 F.2d 579; Dykes v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 313 F.2d The jury could have found these facts. Early in the evening o......
-
United States v. Mihalopoulos
...inadmissible on the ground that about three hours elapsed between the arrest and the time when it was signed. In Tatum v. United States, 114 U.S. App.D.C. 188, 313 F.2d 579, the defendant was arrested at 8:00 p. m., and arrived at the police station about 8:50 p. m. When first questioned he......
-
Coleman v. United States
...McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L. Ed. 819 (1943). Other cases are cited in our opinion in Tatum v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 313 F.2d 579. Failure to exclude the confessions was prejudicial error and the judgment must be reversed. Jones v. United States, ......