Court, after a complete hearing and consideration of extensive legal memoranda, finds to be without merit.
The remaining issues of any substance raised in the present motion revolve around the admissibility of those in-custody statements. On November 4, 1957, Tucker was indicted for murder and on November 8, 1957 a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He remained a fugitive until his arrest in the New York City area by FBI agents on June 4, 1959. They arrested him at 2:00 p.m. at Rockaway Beach and arrived with him back at the FBI office in Manhattan by 3:10 p.m. The agents fed Tucker and then advised him that he had a right to counsel, a right to remain silent and that anything he may say could be used against him. They then told him why he was arrested and asked him if he wanted to talk about it in order to make certain that they had the right man. At that point, Tucker told the agents that he had shot at one woman and accidentally hit another, the victim. This all took place after he had eaten, between 3:35 and 4:05 p.m.
Tucker then indicated that he had an upset stomach and the agents had a nurse check him. This took approximately twenty-five minutes. Then, from 4:30 to 4:50 p.m., they processed him including fingerprinting and taking his photograph. It was then too late to present him to a commissioner; and he was therefore detained overnight in a federal jail and presented the next morning.
In his present motion, Tucker contends that that statement given to the FBI agents was inadmissible at his trial because it was taken while he was being unlawfully detained. This Court is satisfied that his arrest was lawful in that he was a known fugitive for whom there was an outstanding arrest warrant to answer a murder indictment. Further, it is clear that the delay in presenting him to a commissioner was not so unnecessary as to violate the rule of Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S. Ct. 1356, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1479 (1957). The statement in question was given within two hours after his arrest, and even though his presentment was delayed for almost twenty hours, it was a necessary delay during which there was no extensive interrogation. Rather, he was transported from the scene of the arrest, fed, advised of his rights, questioned briefly, examined by the nurse, processed and locked up to ensure his presence for arraignment the next morning. The statement given to the FBI agents was not given during a period of unlawful detention.
The defendant contests the admissibility of that statement as well as a statement given to a Metropolitan Police Homicide Detective June 23, 1959 while Tucker was being held in the cell block at the United States District Court House in Washington, D.C., on two additional grounds. Those additional grounds are first, that the statements were elicited unlawfully in violation of the rule of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1964), and second, that the statements were involuntary because he lacked the mental capacity to make a voluntary statement.
As to the Massiah claim, it is clear that Tucker's statements had been elicited from him after he was indicted but in the absence of counsel. As of this date, however, the Massiah rule excluding such statements, has not been applied retroactively to cases such as Tucker's that had completed the appeal process before the date of the Massiah decision. Tucker urges that Massiah should be applied retroactively to his case even though the statements were made long before the Massiah decision and even though his appeal was finalized before Massiah, because, he contends, the purpose of Massiah was to protect a fundamental right the denial of which would preclude a fair trial.
This Court is not persuaded by Tucker's argument. Rather, the Third Circuit's opinion in United States ex rel. Allison v. New Jersey, 418 F.2d 332 (1969), cert. denied 400 U.S. 850, 91 S. Ct. 68, 27 L. Ed. 2d 88 (1970) is persuasive in its holding that Massiah is not retroactive. In that case, the factors to be considered for retroactivity
were examined thoroughly and were summarized:
a new rule should be retroactive if it strongly supports the fact-finding process, although important countervailing considerations may be decisive even in the case of rules closely identified with trial reliability.