U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 223— WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE

18 U.S.C. § 3501

Admissibility of confessions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States or by the District of Columbia, a confession, as defined in subsection (e) hereof, shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given. Before such confession is received in evidence, the trial judge shall, out of the presence of the jury, determine any issue as to voluntariness. If the trial judge determines that the confession was voluntarily made it shall be admitted in evidence and the trial judge shall permit the jury to hear relevant evidence on the issue of voluntariness and shall instruct the jury to give such weight to the confession as the jury feels it deserves under all the circumstances.(b) The trial judge in determining the issue of voluntariness shall take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession, including (1) the time elapsing between arrest and arraignment of the defendant making the confession, if it was made after arrest and before arraignment, (2) whether such defendant knew the nature of the offense with which he was charged or of which he was suspected at the time of making the confession, (3) whether or not such defendant was advised or knew that he was not required to make any statement and that any such statement could be used against him, (4) whether or not such defendant had been advised prior to questioning of his right to the assistance of counsel; and (5) whether or not such defendant was without the assistance of counsel when questioned and when giving such confession.

The presence or absence of any of the above-mentioned factors to be taken into consideration by the judge need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness of the confession.

(c) In any criminal prosecution by the United States or by the District of Columbia, a confession made or given by a person who is a defendant therein, while such person was under arrest or other detention in the custody of any law-enforcement officer or law-enforcement agency, shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person before a magistrate judge or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States or of the District of Columbia if such confession is found by the trial judge to have been made voluntarily and if the weight to be given the confession is left to the jury and if such confession was made or given by such person within six hours immediately following his arrest or other detention: Provided, That the time limitation contained in this subsection shall not apply in any case in which the delay in bringing such person before such magistrate judge or other officer beyond such six-hour period is found by the trial judge to be reasonable considering the means of transportation and the distance to be traveled to the nearest available such magistrate judge or other officer.(d) Nothing contained in this section shall bar the admission in evidence of any confession made or given voluntarily by any person to any other person without interrogation by anyone, or at any time at which the person who made or gave such confession was not under arrest or other detention.(e) As used in this section, the term “confession” means any confession of guilt of any criminal offense or any self-incriminating statement made or given orally or in writing.(Added Pub. L. 90–351, title II, § 701(a), June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 210; amended Pub. L. 90–578, title III, § 301(a)(3), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1115; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)Editorial NotesConstitutionality

For information regarding the constitutionality of this section, as added by section 701(a) of Pub. L. 90–351, see the Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court on the Constitution Annotated website, constitution.congress.gov.

Amendments

1968—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 90–578 substituted “magistrate” for “commissioner” wherever appearing.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Words “magistrate judge” substituted for “magistrate” wherever appearing in subsec. (c) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 749 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: United States v. Corley
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Corley (2007) ca3 · cites it 50× “Johnnie Corley appeals his conviction and sentence for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit that crime. He presses three arguments: (1) his conviction must be vacated because his confessions should have been suppressed as evidence because they were made outside the six-hour…”
United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez (1994) scotus · cites it 18× “This case concerns the scope of 18 U. S. C. § 3501 , the statute governing the admissibility of confessions in federal prosecutions.”
Everetts v. United States (1993) dc · cites it 38× “Code §§ 22-2902, -3202), appellant contends that his confession made to the police following his arrest was the product of "unnecessary delay" under Rule 5(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 3501 , and should have been suppressed for that reason.”
Corley v. United States (2009) scotus · cites it 4× “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 v. Charles Thomas Dickerson, Washington Legal Foundation Safe Streets Coalition, Amici Curiae (1999) ca4 · cites it 11× “Although duly enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States, the United States Department of Justice has steadfastly refused to enforce the provision.”
United States v. Carmen Boche-Perez (2014) ca5 · cites it 10× “In 1968, Congress modified the McNabb–Mallory framework by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 3501 . Section 3501(c) provides that a court may not suppress a confession made during a six-hour safe-harbor period solely due to a delay in presentment if the confession was made voluntarily.”
United States v. Pedro Alvarez-Sanchez (1992) ca9 · cites it 15× “The defendant had moved to suppress his confession on the ground that it was inadmissible under 18 U.S.C. § 3501 due to the delay between his arrest and arraignment.”
United States v. John David Bartlett (1988) ca8 · cites it 8× “The court then entered a ruling, carefully analyzing the record made at the October 2, 1984, hearing as it related to the finding of vol-untariness required by 18 U.S.C. § 3501 . The court found the following facts to have existed at the time the confession was given: (1)…”
United States v. Mitchell (2007) ca9 · cites it 4× “Consequently, in Mitchell’s view, his confessions are inadmissible as they were involuntarily given under 18 U.S.C. § 3501 . ' As the government points out, Mitchell did not raise this specific issue at trial.”
United States v. Liera (2009) ca9 · cites it 8× “The District Court’s Failure To Suppress Liera’s Incriminating Statements Made During His Second Interrogation The primary issue here is whether the district court erred by not suppressing the incriminating statements Liera made to law enforcement officers during his second…”
People v. Cipriano (1988) mich · cites it 6× “[2] For a general discussion of the McNabb-Mallory rule, see Keene, The ill-advised state court revival of the McNabb-Mallory rule, 72 J Crim L & Criminology 204 (1981); note, 18 USC § 3501 and the admissibility of confessions obtained during unnecessary prearraignment delay, 84…”
United States v. Yazzie (2014) nmd · cites it 28× “Court to continue the trial date to allow Yazzie further time to consider the plea and did not discuss with him the merits of suppressing the plea under 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (c), which excludes a confession that was made more than six hours after arrest but before arraignment, when…”
Show all 749 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a) — 2 cases
United States v. Earl Wayne Nash (1990) ca11
United States v. Dickerson (2000) ca4
— 18 U.S.C. § 3501(b) — 2 cases
United States v. John David Bartlett (1988) ca8 “The court then entered a ruling, carefully analyzing the record made at the October 2, 1984, hearing as it related to the finding of vol-untariness required by 18 U.S.C. § 3501 . The court found the following facts to have existed at the time the confession was given: (1)…”
United States v. Alphonse Johnson (1972) ca2
— 18 U.S.C. § 3501(b)(2) — 1 case
United States v. James Braxton (1997) ca4
— 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) — 2 cases
State v. Readus (1988) tenncrimapp
Brown v. United States (2009) dc
— 18 U.S.C. § 3501(d) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Fortunato (2013) mass
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.