October Term 2008 · Docket 07-10441

Does a six-hour delay bar confession evidence?

The dispute centers on whether a six-hour delay automatically excludes confessions.

Official caption
Corley v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    McColgin argued the statute requires excluding delayed confessions.

    Dreeben argued the statute preserves judicial supervisory power.

    Alito asked if the statute codifies or modifies the rule.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of a federal statute on confession admissibility.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 21, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Corley wants the confessions excluded due to the delay.

The government wants the confessions admitted as evidence.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Corley argues the statute mandates exclusion after six hours.

The government argues the statute allows judicial discretion.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Roberts asked if judges can exclude confessions solely for delay.

Kennedy asked if a six-hour safe harbor exists in the law.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This defines how courts handle delayed confessions in federal trials.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON