| Autor: |
Kotin, Lawrence L., Reuben, D. H. |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science; Sep/Oct1951, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p351-355, 5p |
| Abstrakt: |
This article examines a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding the implementation of the McNabb rule, established as an exercise of the supervisory of the Supreme Court over the administration of justice in the federal courts. Since 1942, it has been generally thought that a confession is inadmissible in the federal courts if secured during a period of illegal detention resulting from the failure of arresting officers to promptly arraign the accused. This rule of evidence, commonly known as the McNabb rule was established by the Supreme Courts. Prior to its inception, a voluntary-trustworthy test for confessions prevailed. Briefly stated, admissibility was made to depend upon whether or not the confession was freely and voluntarily made without having been induced by the expectation of any promised benefit or by the fear of any threatened reprisal. Unlike the McNabb rule, any confession so coerced was regarded as basically unfair and said to offend the guaranties of due process. Despite the voluntary-trustworthy test, police abuses of accused persons continued to flourish and it is generally conceded that these abuses gave rise to the McNabb rule. Ever changing fact situations have given rise to two discernible applications of the McNabb rule by the federal courts. Some courts have concentrated on the nature of the delay which preceded the arraignment and admissibility of the confession has been made to depend upon whether or not the delay was necessary. |
| Databáze: |
Supplemental Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
