Report No. 99

Questions Presented for Review

1. Where appellant, following warrantless arrest, was taken to police headquarters at 8.20 p.m. and where, after the administrative chores of booking were completed, appellant was interrogated by police until a confession had been obtained, resulting in delay of the initial appearance of appellant before a magistrate until 10.00 p.m., is the delay between the time of the appellant's arrest and his initial appearance "unnecessary" and unreasonable within the meaning of the Great State Rules of Criminal Procedure $ 118, thereby rendering appellant's confession and the evidence flowing from it inadmissible at trial?

2. When appellant has been interrogated by police without the presence of legal counsel and where appellant was in a state of reprehension after having been physically "roughed up" at the time of arrest and neither understood nor appreciated the legal implications of statements made to the police in such circumstances, does the appellants confession lack the voluntariness required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), thus making it as well as any evidence flowing from it inadmissible against appellant?

3. When the trial court, in denying defense counsel's motions to suppress evidence, refers to defense counsel's statements us frivolous, does the interjection by the court of such remarks prejudice appellant's case and offend against the fundamental requirements of an unbiased and unprejudiced tribunal, thereby denying defendant a fair and impartial trial and thus constituting reversible error?