EVIDENCE-CONFESSIONS-McNABB RULE NOT APPLICABLE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Authors

Harry T. Baumann S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Defendant, detained on a vagrancy charge in Texas, voluntarily confessed to a homicide committed in Nebraska. Upon his return to the latter state, the defendant repeated his confession and was subsequently arraigned, having been in custody for twenty-five days. The confessions were introduced at the trial and a conviction of manslaughter followed. Defendant, failing to gain a reversal in the state court, sought review by the United States Supreme Court, charging that a failure to arraign the defendant promptly in breach of local statutes was a want of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. On certiorari, held, affirmed, Justices Black and Douglas dissenting. Illegal detention alone is not sufficient basis under the Fourteenth Amendment for excluding confessions used in state prosecutions. Gallegos v. Nebraska, 342 U.S. 55, 72 S.Ct. 141 (1951).

Recommended Citation

Harry T. Baumann S.Ed., EVIDENCE-CONFESSIONS-McNABB RULE NOT APPLICABLE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 51 Mich. L. Rev. 292 (1952).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol51/iss2/11