Corley v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Souter
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 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.
I
A
The common law obliged an arresting officer to bring his prisoner before a magistrate as soon as he reasonably could. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44, 61-62 (1991)…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Cannon v. University of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by892 opinions
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Bilski v. KapposSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- J. D. B. v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Walter Shuker v. Smith & Nephew PLCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
- Matthew Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2017
887 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.