“without unnecessary delay.” 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c), in turn, creates a six hour “safe harbor” for confessions elicited before an arraignment. A court may “admit a statement made outside of the safe harbor if the delay was reasonable or if public policy concerns weigh in favor of admission.” United States v. Padilla Mendoza, 157 F.3d 730, 731 (9th Cir.1998), United States v. Van Poyck, 77 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir.1996). The district court concluded that the thirty-two hour pre-arraignment delay in this ease was reasonable because Fritts was suffering from heroin withdrawal and had to be hospitalized. Relying on our decision in United States v. George, 987 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir.1993), it held that “a delay caused by medical necessity does not violate Rule 5(a).” See George, 987 F.2d at 1431 (<HOLDING>). The district court did not clearly err in
holding that trial judges determination of the admissibility of a confession is based on whether the confession was voluntarily given holding that a confession made before arraignment was admissible because medical necessity was the reason for the prearraignment delay holding that a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession