Irvin v. Dowd

Last updated

Irvin v. Dowd
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 15, 1959
Decided May 4, 1959
Full case nameLeslie Irvin, Petitioner, v. Alfred F. Dowd, Warden of the Indiana State Prison
Citations359 U.S. 394 ( more )
79 S. Ct. 825; 3 L. Ed. 2d 900
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Holding
The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies does not bar resort to federal habeas corpus if the petitioner has obtained a decision on his constitutional claims from the highest court of a State, even though that court could have based its decision on another ground.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Charles E. Whittaker  · Potter Stewart
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Stewart
ConcurrenceStewart
DissentFrankfurter
DissentHarlan, joined by Frankfurter, Clark, Whittaker
Laws applied
28 U.S.C.   § 2254

Irvin v. Dowd, 359 U.S. 394 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case. [1] It involved the denial of appeal of an escaped convict, Leslie Irvin. The convict sought a federal writ of habeas corpus.

Contents

Irvin v. Dowd was one of the first of many cases to underscore the "swing vote" role played by Justice Potter Stewart, who recently had come to the Supreme Court and was caught between the two warring camps of justices: the liberal camp of Justices Earl Warren and William Brennan and the conservative camp headed by Justice Felix Frankfurter. [2]

Factual background

The Irvin case centered on a series of murders in Evansville, Indiana, from 1954 to early 1955. [3] In April 1955, local police arrested Leslie Irvin, announcing he had confessed to the crimes. [3] Irvin's lawyers sought a change of venue for the case to avoid local biases, but they lost; a third of the jury was seated despite statements showing they had prejudged the defendant to be guilty. [3] Irvin was sentenced to death in January 1956; he soon escaped from jail, leaving a note maintaining his innocence and alleging police misconduct and public prejudging of his case, as well as asking his lawyer to appeal. [4] Irvin was soon recaptured, and the Indiana Supreme Court would reject his motions for appeals. [5]

Irvin's lawyer came to the Supreme Court asking for a writ of habeas corpus. [5]

The case came to the Supreme Court to decide the question of whether Irvin's escaping from custody forfeited his right to appeal. [5] Beyond that, the justices on the court prone to judicial restraint (Frankfurter, Harlan, Clark, and Whittaker) were usually not supportive of the idea of a federal court issuing a writ of habeas corpus in a state prosecution case. [5] Brennan and Warren were concerned with the jurors who were allowed to sit on the case despite having prejudged the outcome. [5]

Justice Stewart at first felt that court precedent, especially the case of Brown v. Allen, precluded the Supreme Court from getting involved in the state prosecution. [6] Brennan managed to distinguish the Brown case and convinced Stewart to vote with him, bringing about a 5-4 majority for the liberals. [6] Brennan wrote an opinion forcing the state of Indiana to consider Irvin's appeal on the basis of the jury issue; he did not reach the matter of Irvin's escape. [6]

Outcome

Justice Brennan wrote an opinion holding that Irvin's exhaustion of state remedies did not bar a federal court's granting habeas corpus. [1] Stewart issued a one-line concurrence distinguishing the case from Brown v. Allen. [1]

The four judges in the minority, Frankfurter's bloc, saw the case as an example of the Court overreaching. [6] Frankfurter resented the interposition of federal court review over state criminal actions. [6]

Aftermath

Though Justice Brennan had begun his Supreme Court career voting with Justice Frankfurter about half the time, the Irvin case marked the end of a meaningful relationship between the two justices. [7] Frankfurter convinced a distinguished Harvard Law professor, Henry M. Hart, Jr., to focus on the case in the law school's Harvard Law Review as a means of character-assassinating Justice Brennan. [8] [9]

Despite ideological divides, when the case came back to the Supreme Court nearly two years later, the Court managed to write a unanimous opinion again remanding the case to state court, due to the original trial depriving Irvin of Fourteenth Amendment due process. [10] Justice Clark's majority opinion underscored the need for impartiality in the jury: "In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, 'indifferent' jurors." [10] [11]

Justice Frankfurter wrote a concurrence on the media and its coverage's way of preventing jurors from delivering impartial verdicts. [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Felix Frankfurter</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1939 to 1962

Felix Frankfurter was an Austrian-born American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1939 until 1962, during which period he was a noted advocate of judicial restraint in its judgements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Potter Stewart</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1958 to 1981

Potter Stewart was an American lawyer and judge who served as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1958 to 1981. During his tenure, he made major contributions to criminal justice reform, civil rights, access to the courts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the effective assistance of counsel during a criminal trial.

Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus. This case was a precedent for the Supreme Court's review of state criminal trials in terms of their compliance with the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (1967), found in favor of the petitioner (Whitus), who had been convicted for murder, and as such reversed their convictions. This was due to the Georgia jury selection policies, in which it was alleged racial discrimination had occurred.

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.

Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007), was a case dealing with jury selection in capital cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that appeals courts must defer to a trial judge’s decision on whether a potential juror would be able to overcome demur about capital punishment and be open to voting to impose a death sentence.

Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976), is a Supreme Court case involving Harry Lee Williams' conviction of assault on his former landlord in Harris County, Texas. While awaiting trial Williams was unable to post bail. He was tried in his prison uniform, and later was found guilty. He sought a writ of habeas corpus saying being tried in a prison uniform violated his Constitutional rights in accordance with the 14th Amendment. The Court of Appeals ruled that the accused does not have to stand trial in identifiable prison clothes and Williams’ right to due process was violated. The Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the conviction, on June 21, 1976.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

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.

Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.

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.

Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment, but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his Fourth Amendment argument in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed, and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values, and had different requirements for prevailing in court, and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion, the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), was decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that limited which claims of Fourth Amendment violations could be made by state prisoners in habeas corpus petitions in federal courts. Specifically, a claim that the exclusionary rule had been broken would be barred if state courts had already given it a full and fair hearing. The decision combined two cases that were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day with similar issues, one filed by Lloyd Powell and the other, titled Wolff v. Rice, filed by David Rice.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Irvin v. Dowd, 359 U.S. 394 (1959).
  2. ↑ Eisler, Kim Isaac (1993), A Justice for All: William J. Brennan, Jr., and the decisions that transformed America, New York: Simon & Schuster, p.  159, ISBN   978-0-671-76787-7
  3. 1 2 3 Eisler 1993 , p. 159.
  4. ↑ Eisler 1993 , pp. 159–160.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Eisler 1993 , p. 160.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Eisler 1993 , p. 161.
  7. ↑ Eisler 1993 , pp. 160–161, 164.
  8. ↑ Eisler 1993 , pp. 162–164.
  9. ↑ Hart, Henry M. Jr. (1959), "The Supreme Court, 1958 Term", Harvard Law Review, 73 (1): 84–240, doi:10.2307/1337947, JSTOR   1337947
  10. 1 2 3 "Irvin v. Dowd - 366 U.S. 717 (1961)". Supreme.justia.com. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
  11. ↑ Acker, James R.; Brody, David C. (2004), Criminal Procedure (2nd ed.), Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, p. 528, ISBN   978-0-7637-3169-4
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.