U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1960

United States v. Marshall

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 22, 1960 · Holtzoff

24 F.R.D. 505; 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5453

Counsel

Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and John W. Warner, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., on behalf of the Government., D. F. Gochran, of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Elizabeth G. Austin v. United States of America, James E. Holshouser, United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina (4th Cir. 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

This is a motion by the defendant prior to trial to suppress statements made by the defendant to police officers subsequently to his arrest. The invariable practice in this District is to follow the prevailing procedure of not entertaining such motions, but to leave objections to the admissibility of a statement made by the defendant to be determined at the trial.1 The situation is entirely different from that presented by motions to suppress tangible evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure. Such motions are expressly provided for by Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., which represents an exception to the general doctrine that matters to be determined in connection with the merits of a case should not be decided piecemeal, but at the trial.

The Court is going to follow the prevailing practice and the practice that has invariably been pursued in this District and deny the motion without prejudice to the objection being raised at the trial if and when these statements are offered in evidence.

Motion denied.

. Centracchio v. Garrity, 1 Cir., 198 F.2d 382, 387; Biggs v. United States, 6 Cir., 246 F.2d 40, 43; United States v. Tuzzo, D.C.N.J., 9 F.R.D. 466; The opposite has been held in the Second Circuit with, however, a strong dissenting opinion, In re Fried, 161 F.2d 453, 1 A.L.R.2d 996.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.