In McNabb v. United States[case]McNabb v. United States[MacNabb v. United States] (1943), the Supreme Court ruled that any statements an accused made while being improperly detained could not be used against that person at trial, thereby dramatically reducing the prospect of coerced confessions. In Mallory, Justice Felix FrankfurterFrankfurter, Felix;Mallory v. United States[Mallory v. United States] wrote the unanimous opinion for the Court sustaining the McNabb rule for use in federal criminal cases but not extending the rule to state criminal cases under the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court can only set aside state criminal convictions for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, but it can directly create rules for the federal courts. At one point, it seemed the Court might apply the McNabb rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment incorporation doctrine, but the Court chose to rely instead on the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) rule to achieve the comparable purpose. The McNabb rule was not constitutional law, so it could be changed by congressional action. It was effectively eliminated in the late 1960’s.Defendants’ rights;Mallory v. United States[Mallory v. United States]

Due process, procedural

Exclusionary rule

Fourteenth Amendment

Gideon v. Wainwright

Incorporation doctrine

Miranda rights

Miranda v. Arizona

Reversals of Court decisions by Congress