Unnecessary Delay In Arraignment

12 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Leviton
  193 F.2d 848· 2d Cir.· 1951-11-30 ·cited 100×
  A confession obtained during an unnecessary and unreasonable delay in arraignment, in violation of the McNabb rule, is inadmissible. Furthermore, prejudicial publicity and judicial misconduct can deny a fair trial.
• Lovelace v. United States
  357 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-03 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the application of 26 U.S.C. § 5851 in the indictment, which required the defendant himself to have registered the firearm as part of the offense, was unconstitutional as it violated the privilege against self-incrimination.
• United States v. Odom
  526 F.2d 339· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-23 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the marijuana seized was properly admitted into evidence and that the statements made by Odom were admissible, affirming the convictions.
• Trilling v. United States
  260 F.2d 677· D.C. Cir.· 1958-04-17 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a confession obtained after a valid arrest but before arraignment is admissible if it is not the product of illegal detention or police wrongdoing, but inadmissible if the detention's primary purpose was to elicit damaging statements.
• Watson v. United States
  234 F.2d 42· D.C. Cir.· 1956-05-03 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the written confession was inadmissible due to unnecessary delay in presenting the defendant to a committing authority after 9 AM, and this error was not cured by leaving voluntariness to the jury.
• Ginoza v. United States
  279 F.2d 616· 9th Cir.· 1960-06-06 ·cited 30×
  Statements and admissions made by the defendant after arrest and prior to being taken before a committing magistrate are inadmissible if obtained during unnecessary delay in arraignment, as per Rule 5(a) and the McNabb-Mallory exclusionary rule.
• Perry v. United States
  253 F.2d 337· D.C. Cir.· 1957-12-12 ·cited 28×
  Statements made by the appellant to police officers were admissible because they were made voluntarily and without unnecessary delay before being taken to a committing magistrate, despite a later illegal detention.
• Haines v. United States
  188 F.2d 546· 9th Cir.· 1951-04-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the voluntary confessions made by the appellant prior to his arraignment were admissible in evidence, as the delay in arraignment was reasonably necessary and did not constitute an illegal detention for the purpose of extorting a confession.
• Colon D. Lockley, Jr. v. United States
  270 F.2d 915· D.C. Cir.· 1959-07-02 ·cited 15×
  The court should retain jurisdiction and remand for specific findings on the admissibility of the written confession for impeachment purposes.
• Rettig v. United States
  239 F.2d 916· D.C. Cir.· 1956-10-26 ·cited 4×
  A conviction must be reversed if police testimony concerning oral confessions obtained during an unnecessary and illegal detention, in violation of Rule 5(a), is admitted.
• Efran Vizcarra-Delgadillo v. United States
  395 F.2d 70· 9th Cir.· 1968-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel, as the attorney's investigation, though limited, was sufficient given the circumstances and the client's admissions.
• Shane v. United States
  367 F.2d 285· 9th Cir.· 1966-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petitioner's second motion to vacate his sentence, as the grounds raised were previously determined on the merits and no new evidence was presented.