Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky

Last updated
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 5, 1972
Decided February 28, 1973
Full case nameCharles D. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky
Citations410 U.S. 484 ( more )
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Douglas, Stewart, White, Marshall
ConcurrenceBlackmun
DissentRehnquist, joined by Burger, Powell
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; 28 U.S.C. § 2241

Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), was a decision of the US Supreme Court regarding the statutory jurisdiction of federal district courts to grant writs of habeas corpus for guaranteeing the right of state prisoners to receive a speedy trial in another state under the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Contents

Background

While serving a prison sentence in Alabama, Charles D. Braden petitioned the US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking a speedy trial to resolve a three-year old indictment from Kentucky's state courts. Braden argued that leaving his Kentucky indictment on a detainer to be resolved at the conclusion of his state prison sentence in Alabama was negatively affecting his reputation at Alabama parole board hearings. In response, the District Court ordered the 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky to either secure Braden's presence to stand trial in Kentucky within 60 days or Braden's indictment on Kentucky state charges would be dismissed. [1]

In 1948, the Supreme Court had ruled in Ahrens v. Clark that Title 28 of the US Code, which has allowed federal district courts to grant writs of habeas corpus "within their respective jurisdictions" since 1867, did not allow individuals on Ellis Island to challenge the Attorney General's deportation orders by seeking writs of habeas corpus from the US District Court for the District of Columbia. [2] Citing this precedent, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's order, arguing that it lacked the jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus, prompting Braden's appeal to the Supreme Court. [1]

Supreme Court ruling

Majority

First, in the 1968 case Peyton v. Rowe , the Supreme Court allowed prisoners incarcerated under consecutive state prison sentences to petition for writs of habeas corpus regarding subsequent prison sentences which they had yet to serve. [3] Based on this precedent, the majority opinion, written by Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr., found that Charles Braden was considered eligible to petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a federal district court in Kentucky, despite his current confinement in an Alabama state prison. [1]

Second, in the 1969 case Smith v. Hooey , the Supreme Court ruled that states are required to respond to petitions for a speedy trial with a good faith effort, even if the petitioner is currently serving a federal prison sentence. [4] Extending this precedent, the majority claimed that Braden had exhausted the available state judicial remedies in his unsuccessful petitions for a speedy trial, making him eligible to petition for federal habeas corpus. [1]

Third, the court distinguished its ruling in Ahrens v. Clark by arguing that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only requires district courts to be capable of service of process to the Alabama state prison. [1] The majority reasoned that if Braden were required to file his habeas corpus petition in an Alabama district court, then the Kentucky state government would be forced to send lawyers across the country and defend its practices to federal judges unfamiliar with Kentucky state law. In comparison, Alabama state law was considered irrelevant to resolving Braden's right to a speedy trial. [1]

The majority noted that while the Sixth Circuit believed habeas corpus petitions should be filed in the District Court where Braden was incarcerated, Alabama is within the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in May v. Georgia (1969) that federal habeas corpus petitions should be filed in the District Court of the state filing the detainer for a future trial. [5] Thus, the majority opinion argued that its decision would avoid creating a "Catch 2254", a portmanteau of Catch-22 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the statute authorizing federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to prisoners in state custody. [6] [1]

Concurrence

Associate Justice Harry Blackmun's short concurrence cautioned that since the 1940s, the Supreme Court has significantly expanded opportunities to petition for habeas corpus. Additionally, Blackmun highlighted the irony of Braden staking his right to a speedy trial, given that when Kentucky indicted him in 1967, the state paid for his transfer from custody in California, only for Braden to escape before standing trial. While evading Kentucky authorities, Braden was arrested for unrelated charges in Alabama, resulting in the circumstances of this case. [1]

Dissent

Associate Justice William Rehnquist's dissent criticized modifications to the statutory interpretation of Ahrens v. Clark, given that Congress could have amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the intervening 25 years, yet it chose not to. Additionally, the dissent critiqued the majority's reference to Peyton v. Rowe as irrelevant because whereas that case dealt with challenging the later portions of concurrent prison sentences, Braden was petitioning for habeas corpus regarding a trial yet to occur. [1]

Furthermore, Rehnquist highlighted that in the 1886 case Ex parte Royall, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have discretion in granting habeas corpus petitions because federalism dictates that defendants should exhaust all state judicial remedies before seeking federal intervention. [7] Thus, the dissent argued that even though Braden had petitioned Kentucky state courts for a speedy trial, he would still need to wait until his trial in Kentucky state court before petitioning for federal habeas corpus. [1]

Legacy

In 2004, the Supreme Court evaluated whether 28 U.S.C. § 2241 allows foreign nations held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, an American military installation built on land leased from Cuba in perpetuity, to petition the US District Court for the District of Columbia for federal habeas corpus. In the 1950 case Johnson v. Eisentrager , the Supreme Court ruled that German war criminals held in the American-run Landsberg Prison in Germany could not petition for habeas corpus under this statute because the camp was outside the jurisdiction of any United States District Court. [8] However, the Supreme Court ultimately voted 6–3 in Rasul v. Bush , finding that Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky allowed this District Court to consider such petitions because it could reach the federal and military authorities acting as custodians. [9] [10]

After the Military Commissions Act of 2006 retroactively denied military detainees the right to petition for federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that Guantanamo Bay detainees nonetheless retain a constitutional right to petition for federal habeas corpus under the Suspension Clause because the United States maintains de facto sovereignty over the detention camp. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Harvey v. Horan</i>

Harvey v. Horan, 278 F. 3d 370, is a federal court case dealing with felons' rights of access to DNA testing. The Eastern Virginia District Court originally found that felons were entitled access to DNA testing on potentially exculpatory evidence, but this finding was later overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, the case paved the way for the Innocence Protection Act, which ensures that convicted offenders can try to prove their innocence by requesting DNA testing on evidence in government's possession that was used in their case.

Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that foreign nationals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention. The Court's 6–3 judgment on June 28, 2004, reversed a D.C. Circuit decision which had held that the judiciary has no jurisdiction to hear any petitions from foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), was a major decision of the US Supreme Court, where it decided that US courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a US-administered prison in Germany. The prisoners had at no time been on American sovereign territory.

In the United States, extradition law is a collection of federal laws that regulate extradition, the formal process by which a fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country or state for trial, punishment, or rehabilitation.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus petition made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case where the court unanimously concluded that the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1), extends to U.S. citizens held overseas by American forces subject to an American chain of command, even if acting as part of a multinational coalition. But, it found that habeas corpus provided the petitioners with no relief, holding that "Habeas corpus does not require the United States to shelter such fugitives from the criminal justice system of the sovereign with authority to prosecute them."

Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 (1975), is a U.S. Supreme Court case which held that when state law permits a defendant to plead guilty without giving up his right to judicial review of specified constitutional issues, such as the lawfulness of a search or the voluntariness of a confession, the defendant is not prevented from pursuing those constitutional claims in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.

Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case that denied a federal district court jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus if the person detained is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court when the petition is filed. The 6–3 ruling was handed down on June 21, 1948, with the majority opinion written by Justice William O. Douglas and the dissent written by Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge.

Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) does not apply in custody rulings for Miranda.

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case that forbids judicial “vindictiveness” from playing a role in the increased sentence a defendant receives after a new trial. In sum, due process requires that a defendant be “free of apprehension” of judicial vindictiveness. Time served for a new conviction of the same offense must be “fully credited,” and a trial judge seeking to impose a greater sentence on retrial must affirmatively state the reasons for imposing such a sentence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span> Aspect of U.S. judicial history (1836–1864)

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

In law, post conviction refers to the legal process which takes place after a trial results in conviction of the defendant. After conviction, a court will proceed with sentencing the guilty party. In the American criminal justice system, once a defendant has received a guilty verdict, they can then challenge a conviction or sentence. This takes place through different legal actions, known as filing an appeal or a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The goal of these proceedings is exoneration, or proving a convicted person innocent. If lacking representation, the defendant may consult or hire an attorney to exercise his or her legal rights.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which provides the writ of coram nobis as the proper application to request federal post-conviction judicial review for those who have completed the conviction's incarceration in order to challenge the validity of a federal criminal conviction.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that an interrogation of a prisoner was not a custodial interrogation per se, and certainly it was not "clearly established federal law" that it was custodial, as would be required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Instead, the Court said, whether the interrogation was custodial depended on the specific circumstances, and moreover, in the particular circumstances of this case, it was not custodial. This decision overturned the rule of the Sixth Circuit, and denied the prisoner's habeas corpus petition.

Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to habeas corpus.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973)
  2. ↑ Ahrens v. Clark , 335 U.S. 188 (1948)
  3. ↑ Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (1968)
  4. ↑ Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 373 (1969)
  5. ↑ May v. Georgia, 409F.2d203 ( 5th Cir. 1969).
  6. ↑ Tuttle, Joan B. (Summer 1971). "Catch 2254: Federal Jurisdiction and Interstate Detainers". University of Pittsburgh Law Review . 32 (4): 489–503 – via HeinOnline.
  7. ↑ Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886)
  8. ↑ Johnson v. Eisentrager , 339 U.S. 763 (1950)
  9. ↑ Rasul v. Bush , 542 U.S. 466 (2004)
  10. ↑ Breyer, Stephen (2011). Making Our Democracy Work. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 198. ISBN   9780307390837.
  11. ↑ Boumediene v. Bush , 553 U.S. 723 (2008)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.