“ From the time Davis was first brought to the overnight lockup in Charlotte on September 21, 1959, until he confessed on the 16th day of detention, police officers conducted daily interrogation sessions with him in a special interrogation room in the building. [7] These sessions each lasted 'forty-five minutes or an hour or maybe a little more,' according to one of the interrogating officers. Captain McCall testified that he had assigned his entire force of 26 to 29 men to investigate the case. From this group, Detectives Hucks and Fesperman had primary responsibility for interrogating Davis. ”

“ Davis then sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The writ was denied without an evidentiary hearing on the basis of the state court record. 196 F.Supp. 488. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of Davis' confessions. 310 F.2d 904. A hearing was held in the District Court, following which the District Judge again held that the confessions were voluntary. ”

“ Having obtained permission, they took Davis from Belmont authorities and brought him to the detective headquarters in Charlotte. From the testimony of the officers, it is beyond dispute that the reason for securing Davis was their suspicion that he had committed the murder. [3]
The second and third floors of the detective headquarters building contain lockup cells used for detention overnight and occasionally for slightly longer periods. It has no kitchen facilities for preparing meals. ”

“ As we pointed out in Johnson, however, the nonretroactivity of the decision in Miranda does not affect the duty of courts to consider claims that a statement was taken under circumstances which violate the standards of voluntariness which had begun to evolve long prior to our decisions in Miranda and Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964) . This Court has undertaken to review the voluntariness of statements obtained by police in state cases since Brown v. ”

“ We were not holding him for the State when he was in Gaston County jail, but were making an investigation in reference to our murder case.' At the habeas corpus hearing, he testified: ' (H) e was in our custody primarily because he was a suspect in Mrs. Cooper's case * * *.' Davis' prior offenses included an assault in the vicinity of the cemetery, and his home had been nearby. See also note 9, infra.↑ The only exception to this incarceration was a day spent near Asheville, described infra, and a night in the Asheville jail.↑ Transcript of Evidence on Appeal. ”

“ State of Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 515-516, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 1344-1345, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963) ; Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 205, 80 S.Ct. 274, 279, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960) ; Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143, 147-148, 64 S.Ct. 921, 923, 88 L.Ed. 1192 (1944) . ”