Johnnie Corley v. United States (556 U.S. 303)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 6, 2009 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 556 U.S. 303 · 129 S. Ct. 1558
- Decided
- April 6, 2009
- Term
- October Term 2008
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The question here is whether Congress intended 18 U. S. C. § 3501 to discard, or merely to narrow, the rule in McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449 (1957), under which an arrested person’s confession is inadmissible if given after an unreasonable delay in bringing him before a judge. We hold that Congress meant to limit, not eliminate, McNabb-Mallory. I A The common law obliged an arresting officer to bring his prisoner before a magistrate as soon as he reasonably could. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44, 61-62 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting). This “presentment” requirement tended to prevent secret detention and served to inform a suspect of the charges against him, and it was the law in nearly every American State and the National Government. See id., at 60-61; McNabb, supra, at 342, and n. 7. McNabb v. United States raised the question of how to enforce a number of federal statutes codifying the presentment rule. 318 U. S., at 342 (citing, among others, 18 U. S. C. § 595 (1940 ed.), which provided that “ ‘[i]t shall be the duty of the marshal. .. who may arrest a person ... to take the defendant before the nearest . . . judicial officer ... for a hearing’”). There, federal agents flouted the requirement by interrogating several murder suspects for days…
Excerpt of a 52,171-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.