New Supreme Court case on confessions

Philip D. Cave

The Supreme Court issued a decision today in Corley v. United States.

The SCOTUSWiki documentation.

The decision in Corley.

This may have some impact on military “confessions” and situations. It’s a McNabb / Mallory issue.

The question here is whether Congress intended 18 U. S. C. §3501 to discard, or merely to narrow, the rule in McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449 (1957), under which an arrested person’s [voluntary] confession is inadmissible if given after an unreasonable delay in bringing him before a judge. We hold that Congress meant to limit, not eliminate, McNabb-Mallory.


It’s been a while since litigating McNabb issues within the military. Generally the military courts were not receptive to NcNabb or 18 U. S. Code 3501. Which has been good. However, now its possible there’s some argument to be made on the “delay” issue when there is a confession. Time to get creative.

We categorically reject the underlying premise postulated by the reviewer that the provisions of 18 USC 3501 operate, sub silentio, to vitiate the protections afforded the military accused by Article 31. It certainly does not follow, as the reviewer seems to reason, that Section 3501 must be presumed applicable to military prosecutions merely because it contains no specific declaration to the contrary. That approach wholly ignores the essentially autonomous nature of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a monolithic body of legislation having exclusive application to military prosecutions. Throughout our history, the one common denominator which has always characterized our National legislative policy is the unyielding dedication of the Congress to the proposition that the unique nature and function of the military establishment requires that the rights of servicemen be separately defined in segregated legislation. See Burns v Wilson, 346 US 137, 140 (1953); United States v Culp, 14 U.S.C.M.A. 199, 33 C.M.R. 411 (1963); United States v Smith, 13 U.S.C.M.A. 105, 32 C.M.R. 105 (1962).

United States v. Gilliard, 42 C.M.R. 1029, 1033 (A.F.C.M.R. 1970).

Client Reviews

Many years after retiring from the USN, I suddenly found myself in a very unwelcome legal matter with the Navy. It was a total shock and I was very concerned as to the impact this would have on me and my...

Rob

I was facing accusations that would not only ruin my career but my life. When I hired Mr. Freeburg, he gave me the hope that everything would be turn out great. He put a great team together along with my...

Air Force Anonymous

Phil Cave has helped me through NJP and restoration of my security clearance. He even came to visit me in Spain. I never thought I would work again and he certainly through with advise and guidance that we're...

Bryan

Mr. Nathan Freeburg fought and won a war for me. A war where my life was on the line. The week of trial was extremely long but he never seemed like he was tired. The prosecution were getting whittled down each...

Navy Anonymous

Mr. Cave saved my military retirement! His promise to me from day one was that he would fight as hard as he could he right the wring that had been done to me. And he did! I am so very thankful and grateful to...

Crystal

Mr. Freeburg is passionate about justice and upholding the law and dignity of the court. He is brave and bold in his ability to represent his clients amidst the attempted intimidation and procedural pressure...

Navy Represented

The Army and prosecution was pushing for me to take a Chapter 10. But Mr. Freeburg made me confident we could win. We went to trial and he crushed them in cross examination and he saved my career.

Vince

Contact Us

  1. 1 Free Consultation
  2. 2 Over 40 Years of Experience
  3. 3 Dedicated to Military Law
Fill out the contact form or call us at 703-298-9562 to schedule your free consultation.

Leave Us a Message