The following excerpt is from Little v. United States, 417 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1969):
Other circuits have held that where a state arrest precedes a federal arrest, any delay in arraignment under Rule 5(a) runs from the time of the federal arrest, absent a showing of collusion
[417 F.2d 915]
with state officers. United States v. Gorman, (2 Cir. 1965) 355 F.2d 151, 156; Young v. United States, (8 Cir. 1965) 344 F.2d 1006, cert. denied 382 U.S. 867, 86 S.Ct. 138, 15 L.Ed.2d 105. Our circuit has taken the position that prior state custody may be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of delay that ensued after federal officers took custody of the defendant. Smith v. United States, (9 Cir. 1968) 390 F.2d 401, 403; Muldrow v. United States, (9 Cir. 1960) 281 F.2d 903, 905. Here the prior state custody was considered. The facts of the prior state custody were before the court at the time of its determination that the confession was voluntary and admissible. The same facts were before the jury at the time of its verdict of guilty. No objection was made to the instruction given to the jury for the determination of voluntariness.[417 F.2d 915]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.