McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), was a United States Supreme Court case. The court held that the defendants' confessions were inadmissible as evidence after the government's disregard of the requirement to bring them promptly before a judge or magistrate.Inbau at 444–445Hogan & Snee at 4–5
McNabb was the first decision to rely on the Supreme Court's supervisory power over lower federal courts.Beale at 1435Barrett at 328–330 That is, it was not decided on the basis of constitutional rights, nor on any statute explicitly prohibiting the evidence from being used, but on the inherent authority of the court.Pushaw at 779–780
The evidentiary rule developed through McNabb and Mallory v. United States (1957) became known as the McNabb–Mallory rule. Since it is not a constitutional rule, it does not apply to states.Hogan & Snee at 41 Its applicability has been narrowed by Congress, but not eliminated, as the court held in Corley v. United States (2009).
Background The case was about the murder of a federal agent during a law enforcement operation targeting illicit untaxed whiskey. After fleeing the scene, Freeman and Raymond McNabb were arrested in the early morning of the night of the murder; Benjamin McNabb turned himself in the next morning. All were subjected to lengthy questioning over a couple of days. Benjamin confessed that he fired the fatal shot, during a five or six hour interrogation. Freeman and Raymond also made admissions implicating themselves in the crime. Based on each of their admissions, they were found guilty in a jury trial, and their convictions were affirmed on appeal.McNabb, 318 U.S. at 333–338. See also 123 F.2d 848 (6th Cir. 1941); 142 F.2d 904 (6th Cir. 1944).
Supreme Court In the Supreme Court, the McNabbs argued that their admissions were not voluntary, though the court did not decide that question.Hogan & Snee at 3 Instead, sua sponte, the court focused on the statutory requirement to bring them promptly before a judge or magistrate.Beale at 1447 The court, in an opinion by Justice Felix Frankfurter, found that there was a "flagrant disregard" of this procedure.McNabb, 318 U.S. at 345 Although Congress did not specify that exclusion of evidence would be the consequence, the court concluded that such exclusion was necessary to protect Congress's policy. The court said that "judicial supervision of the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts implies the duty of establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence",McNabb, 318 U.S. at 341 beyond the historical minimum of due process.
Justice Stanley F. Reed, the lone dissenter, argued that voluntariness should be the test and the court should not go beyond it.
Subsequent history and additional facts of the case The district court's record did not mention when the McNabbs were arraigned; this led the Supreme Court to conclude, mistakenly, that they were not brought before a magistrate throughout their arrests and questioning. After the Supreme Court decision, the government presented evidence that the McNabbs were arraigned shortly after they were taken into custody. The defendants were convicted in the retrial, and the court of appeals affirmed.Inbau at 445; Beale at 1148
References
External links