Court to hear dispute about suppression of a voluntary confession (Oct. 1, 2008)

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a claim that a voluntary confession made after a suspect’s arrest on federal charges but before he appears before a magistrate must be suppressed when there was a delay before that appearance occurs.

In November 2003, a grand jury indicted Johnnie Corley with conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, armed bank robbery and the use and the carrying of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Following a hearing on Corley’s motion to suppress statements, the district court denied the motion. The jury convicted Corley on counts one and two, and acquitted on count three. In December 2004, Corley was sentenced to 170 months’ imprisonment, five years’ supervised release, a fine of $1000, restitution in the amount of $47,532.76 and a special assessment of $200.

In his appeal, the defense returns to the objections made when asking the trial court to suppress Corley’s statements. The only evidence introduced at trial identifying Corley as a participant in the robbery consisted of two statements law enforcement obtained from Corley more than six hours after his arrest, and before he was brought to a federal magistrate. Corley did not see the magistrate until nearly 30 hours after his arrest. The issue raised in this petition is whether these statements were taken in violation of Corley’s right to prompt appearance before a federal magistrate upon arrest.

On Aug. 31, 2007, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed his conviction on the ground that it was bound by the prior ruling of the Third Circuit in the 1974 case, Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, which held that voluntary statements are admissible even if they were obtained outside the six-hour time period as a result of unreasonable delay.

In asking the justices to grant review, attorneys for Corley argue that the “case presents an excellent vehicle for this court to resolve a deep split in the circuits regarding an important question of statutory construction in federal criminal practice.”

On Oct. 1, 2008, the Supreme Court accepted the case for review.

Question presented: Whether federal law permits the suppression of a voluntary confession made more than six hours after arrest but before presentment to a magistrate, as a consequence of unreasonable delay in presentment.