◆ SpookStack

— 4 Anderson et al. vs. United States. Y. M. C. A. and then to the county jail. He was questioned by four federal officers for about two hours Thursday afternoon, and questioned again for another two hours that night. The officers questioned him for about fifteen minutes on Saturday. On Sun- day he was brought into the room where Simonds and Hubbard were, and upon being eonfronted with their confessions, also con- fessed. On Monday the officers spent about five hours, irom 11 a.m. until 2 p. m. and from about 3:30 until 7 or 7:30 p. m., questioning him in order te reduce his confession to writing. The manner of Woodward in giving his statement was thus de- eribed by the agent who questioned him: ‘‘He had considerable difficulty in recalling the details, he said his mind was not exactly elear on all of it, it took a good while in order to get the details of it, of how it happened, everything in the chronological order of events, and he also complained on occasions that his mind was befuddled in making the statement, upon relating esbout what he had done, and that is the reason it took so long to do it. It took the morning and the greater part of the afternocn.”’ Ehedes. Rhodes was arrested Sunday night, April 28th, and spent that night in the jail, sharing a cell with Woodward, Hub- bard, Simonds, and Queen. He was questioned for about two hours by two agents on Monday morning, and then confessed. Queen. Queen was arrested by two deputies on Sunday after- noon, April 28th, and was taken to the Y. M. C. A. After spend- ing the night in jail, he was questioned for about an hour the following night by three agents. Upon being confronted with the confessions of the others, he admitted his guilt. Ballew. Baliew was arrested by three deputies on Tuesday afternoon, Aprii 30th, and taken to the Y. M. C. A. He was questioned there for about an hour by two federal officers. After spending the night in jail, he confessed the following morning. alata alg ee ee eee The question for decision is whether these conressidns—Tre- pudiated when those who made them took the witness stand at the trial—were properly admitted in evidence against all the peti- tioners, including Anderson and Ellis who did not confess, In the McNabb case we have held, 317 U. 8. —, that ineriminating statements cbtaied under the circumstances set forth in that opinion cannot be made the basis of convictions in the federal Anderson et al. vs. United States, 5 eourts. The conside-ations which ied to that decision also govern this ease. The detention of the petitioners by state officers was, as the Government concedes, in violation of the Tennessee statute which provides that ‘‘No person can be committed to prison for any criminal matter, until examination thereof be first had be- fore some magistrate.’’ Michie’s Code (1938) §11515. The courts of Tennessee exact scrupulous observance of this prohibition by its law officers. See Polk v. State, 170 Tenn. 270; State ex rel. Morris v. National Surety Co., 162 Tenn. 547. Unaided by relatives, friends, or counsel, the men were un- lawfully held, some for days, and subjected to long questioning in the hostile atmosphere of a small company-dominated mining town. The men were not arrested by the federal officers until] April 30th, and only then were they arraigned before a United States Commissioner, except for Ballew who was not arraigned until May 2nd or 3rd. There was a working arrangement between the federal officers and the sheriff of Polk County which made pos- sible the abuses revealed by this record. Therefore, the fact that the federal officers themselves were not formally guilty of illegal conduct does not affect the admissibility of the evidence which they secured improperly through collaboration with state officers. Gambino v. Umited States, 275 U. 8. 310, 314; Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 33-34. The Government urges that, even if the confessions are held to be inadmissible, only the convictions of the six petitioners who confessed should be reversed. " The prosecution rested prin- eipally on these confessions and the testimony of an informant, Freed Long, whose credibility was under severe attack. The incriminating statement of each petitioner implicated all the others, including those who did not confess. To be sure, the trial court devised a procedure under which the confessions were introduced without mention of the names of the other persons implicated. But their names were in fact revealed in the course of the cross-examination of the confessing petitioners. So also, while the trial judge appeared to admit the confessions ‘‘only to be used against the persons who made them’’, his charge bound the jury to no such restricted use of the confessions. On the contrary, from what the trial judge told them the jury had every right to assume that in ascertaining the guilt or imnocence of each defendant they could consider the whole proof made at the trial. There is no reason to believe, therefore, that confessions