OCTOBER TERM, 2008
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CORLEY v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07–10441. Argued January 21, 2009—Decided April 6, 2009
McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, and Mallory v. United States,
354 U. S. 449, “generally rende[r] inadmissible confessions made dur-
ing periods of detention that violat[e] the prompt presentment re-
quirement of [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 5(a).” United
States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U. S. 350, 354. Rule 5(a), in turn, pro-
vides that a “person making an arrest . . . must take the defendant
without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge . . . .” Congress
enacted 18 U. S. C. §3501 in response to Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U. S. 436, and some applications of the McNabb-Mallory rule. In an
attempt to eliminate Miranda, §3501(a) provides that “a confession
. . . shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given,” and
§3501(b) lists several considerations for courts to address in assess-
ing voluntariness. Subsection (c), which focuses on McNabb-Mallory,
provides that “a confession made . . . by . . . a defendant . . . , while
. . . under arrest . . . , shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay
in bringing such person before a magistrate judge . . . if such confes-
sion is found by the trial judge to have been made voluntarily and . . .
within six hours [of arrest]”; it extends that time limit when further
delay is “reasonable considering the means of transportation and the
distance to . . . the nearest available [magistrate].”
Petitioner Corley was arrested f