Robinson v. United States

Last updated
Robinson v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 8, 1945
Decided March 5, 1945
Full case nameThomas Henry Robinson Jr. v. United States
Docket no. 514
Citations324 U.S. 282 ( more )
Case history
PriorRobinson v. United States, 144 F.2d 392 (6th Cir. 1944)
Holding
A defendant under the Federal Kidnapping Act, which provides an offender may receive the death sentence if they harm a victim, may receive capital punishment if the damage they caused to a victim was "not permanent".
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Owen Roberts  · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson  · Wiley B. Rutledge
Case opinions
MajorityBlack, joined by Stone, Roberts, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Byrnes, Jackson
DissentRutledge, joined by Murphy
Laws applied
Federal Kidnapping Act

Thomas Henry Robinson Jr. v. United States, 324 U.S. 282 (1945), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that under the Federal Kidnapping Act which states, "the sentence of death shall not be imposed by the court if, prior to its imposition, the kidnapped person has been liberated unharmed", a defendant may receive the death sentence if their victim suffered from non-permanent injuries. Although the court ruled in this way, it did so mainly on the premise it did not feel it had sufficient reason to "nullify the clearly expressed purpose of Congress" in this case.

Contents

Historical context

This case begins with Thomas H. Robinson Jr, who, on October 10, 1934, kidnapped Alice Stoll in Louisville, Kentucky. [1] In the commission of this kidnapping it was also alleged Robinson's father and wife were involved, however they were acquitted on all charges. Only 10 days later on October 20, a federal grand jury indicted Robinson with violating 18 U.S. Code § 408a and 18 U.S. Code § 408a (both statutes have been moved since). [2]

Robinson was then apprehended on May 11, 1936, in Glendale, California by the FBI and transported back to Kentucky to stand trial. On May 13, 1936, Robinson was arraigned, for § 408a only, and pled guilty to the singular count. [1] Shackelford Miller Jr., a U.S District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky, sentenced Robinson to life imprisonment, and eventually was set to be served at the infamous Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary.

Pre-retrial proceedings

Robinson, then, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the U.S. District Court for Northern California, which was denied. The stated reason for the writ was that Robinson apparently wanted to bring to the Courts' attention the fact he was legally insane, and received ineffective assistance of counsel in his original trial. He appealed the decision the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which released its opinion on April 8, 1941. In its opinion, written by Circuit Judge Curtis D. Wilbur, joined by Circuit Judge Francis A. Garrecht, the court affirmed the lower court and denied Robinson's petition. It stated they did not believe Robinson's petition or motion had "facts sufficient to entitle the petitioner to a writ". [3] Circuit Judge William Healy filed a dissenting opinion. [4]

Robinson then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and eventually vacated the judgement of the Circuit Court, and remanded the case to order a new trial. The remanded circuit court's opinion was this time written by Judge Healy, with Judge Wilbur dissenting, pointing to his prior opinion on the matter as his reasoning. [5] [6] The case was remanded back to the California court on August 10, 1942, where, after a hearing, Judge Michael J. Roche determined that Robinson indeed had not "intelligently waived" his right to effective counsel, and thus ordered a retrial back in the Kentucky court. [7]

Retrial and appeal

The retrial of Robinson concluded in 1943, where he was ultimately convicted of kidnapping and, upon recommendation from the jury, sentenced to death by Judge Miller. Robinson once again appealed, this time to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, this time finally on the matter of whether the death sentence was legal. Robinson argued that the kidnapping statute in question, specifically the provision on the death sentence, was a violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights. The section in question reads as follows:

"Whoever shall knowingly transport or cause to be transported, or aid or abet in transporting, in interstate or foreign commerce, any person who shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnaped, abducted, or carried away by any means whatsoever and held for ransom or reward or otherwise, except, in the case of a minor, by a parent thereof, shall, upon conviction, be punished (1) by death if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, provided that the sentence of death shall not be imposed by the court if, prior to its imposition, the kidnaped person has been liberated unharmed" (emphasis as in original)

Robinson argued that the italicized provision is "too vague, uncertain and indefinite to form the basis of a valid indictment". He argued that, "the phrase "and did not liberate her unharmed" [referenced in the indictment] was too indefinite as a basis for the indictment; that the word "harmed" admits of varying degrees of  meaning from slight to grave". He further argued that he had a right to know "as to what particular injuries the Government would insist had been inflicted". There were also raised concerns in regards to the jury, although this specific argument was denied by the Court. The Court further reviewed Robinson's claim that he was criminally insane, although that also was thrown out. Ultimately the court ruled against Robinson on July 31, 1944. [1] Robinson subsequently appealed to the United States Supreme Court once more.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case, and held oral arguments on February 8, 1945, and released its opinion written by Justice Hugo Black on March 5, 1945. [8] In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the United States, with the dissent being written by Justice Wiley Rutledge and joined by Justice Frank Murphy. The majority opinion started off by strictly establishing the purpose of granting certiorari, stating it to be to answer "the sole question of the court's statutory authority to impose the death sentence." The court notes the ambiguity in this case, saying that the law's "legislative history...is of little assistance to us in interpreting this proviso". So instead of attempting to interpret Congress' intention of the law, it relied on the language of it. Ultimately, the court interpreted the language as follows,

"We accept the word "unharmed" appearing in the proviso as meaning uninjured. Neither the word "permanent" nor any other word susceptible of that meaning was used by Congress...The injuries inflicted upon his victim were of such degree that they cannot be read out of the Act's scope without contracting it to the point where almost all injuries would be excluded. We find no justification whatever for grafting the word permanent onto the language which Congress adopted."

It further went on to conclude,

"This purpose [of this act is] to authorize a death penalty is clear even though Congress did not unmistakably mark some boundary between a pinprick and a permanently mutilated body. It is for Congress, and not for us, to decide whether it is wise public policy to inflict the death penalty at all. We do not know what provision of law, constitutional or statutory, gives us power wholly to nullify the clearly expressed purpose of Congress to authorize the death penalty"

With its judgement, it affirmed the court below's decision and affirmed Robinson's conviction. In further doing so, it upheld the Federal Kidnapping Act.

Rutledge's dissent

Rutledge's dissent starts off being very straightforward, saying that "the penalty of death should not be imposed upon conditions defined so uncertain that their identity cannot be ascertained or is left open to grave doubt". [9] Rutledge goes on to talk about the various ambiguities with the majority's decision and letting that part of the law stand, saying,

"Few kidnappings take place without harm of some kind to the victim. They may be executed by force or by mere threats...Is the death penalty to be imposed for the identical cut or abrasion, whether minor or serious, inflicted during the act of taking the victim, merely because, in one case, the kidnapper releases or abandons him quickly, perhaps because forced to do so, but forbidden in another because he holds the victim until the injury heals? Is reward thus to be given for prolonging the agony?"

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit</span> Federal appellate court for the western U.S.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is the U.S. federal court of appeals that has appellate jurisdiction over the U.S. district courts for the following federal judicial districts:

United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), was a federal criminal prosecution filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles against X-Citement Video and its owner, Rubin Gottesman, on three charges of trafficking in child pornography, specifically videos featuring the underaged Traci Lords. In 1989, a federal judge found Gottesman guilty and later sentenced him to one year in jail and a $100,000 fine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William H. Pryor Jr.</span> American judge (born 1962)

William Holcombe Pryor Jr. is an American lawyer who has served as the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit since 2020. He was appointed as a United States circuit judge of the court by President George W. Bush in 2004. He is a former commissioner of the United States Sentencing Commission. Previously, he was the attorney general of Alabama, from 1997 to 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane S. Sykes</span> American judge (born 1957)

Diane Schwerm Sykes is an American jurist and lawyer who serves as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She served as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1999 to 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David B. Sentelle</span> American judge

David Bryan Sentelle is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He previously was a U.S. district judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina from 1985 to 1987.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David S. Tatel</span> American judge (born 1942)

David Stephen Tatel is an American lawyer who served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fortunato Benavides</span> American judge (1947–2023)

Fortunato Pedro Benavides was an American judge. From 1994 until 2023, he served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas L. Ambro</span> American judge (born 1949)

Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Piano roll blues</span>

The Piano Roll Blues or Old Piano Roll Blues is a figure of speech designating a legal argument made in US patent law relating to computer software. The argument is that a newly programmed general-purpose digital computer is a "new" machine and, accordingly, properly the subject of a US patent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Melvin T. Brunetti</span> American judge (1933–2009)

Melvin Theodore Brunetti was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amul Thapar</span> American judge (born 1969)

Amul Roger Thapar is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He previously served as a U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky from 2008 to 2017 and as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky from 2006 to 2008. Thapar was President Donald Trump's first Court of Appeals appointment and Trump's second judicial appointment after Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thapar was discussed as a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) to require that federal courts grant a party leave to amend a pleading absent special circumstances such as bad faith or prejudice to the opposing party. It has been recognized by both other courts and secondary sources as a leading decision on the interpretation of Rule 15(a).

<i>Cleveland v. United States</i> (1946) 1946 United States Supreme Court case

Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that notwithstanding the fact that polygamy is a person's religious belief, the Mann Act prohibits the transportation of women across state lines to participate in polygamy.

The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law is a law review edited and published by students at Columbia Law School. One of the oldest student-run international law journals in the United States, it publishes scholarly articles and student notes on issues of transnational law.

Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld a death sentence despite the defendant's argument that he should not be sentenced to death because he was suffering from drug-induced psychosis when he committed the crimes. Cone also argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to present sufficient mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial and that his attorney inappropriately waived his final argument during the sentencing phase. In an 8–1 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the United States Supreme Court denied Cone's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the actions taken by Cone's attorney during the sentencing phase were "tactical decisions" and that the state courts that denied Cone's appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established law. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Cone was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to "subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing."

Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to a hearing to determine whether prosecutors in his 1982 death penalty trial violated his right to due process by withholding exculpatory evidence. The defendant, Gary Cone, filed a petition for postconviction relief from a 1982 death sentence in which he argued that prosecutors violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have shown that his drug addiction affected his behavior. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court held that Cone was entitled to a hearing to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated Cone's right to due process; the Court noted that "the quantity and the quality of the suppressed evidence lends support to Cone’s position at trial that he habitually used excessive amounts of drugs, that his addiction affected his behavior during his crime spree". In 2016, Gary Cone died from natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row.

Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d), part of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. The section of the SORNA allows the Attorney General to "specify the applicability" of the mandatory registration requirements of "sex offenders convicted before the enactment of [SORNA]". Precedent is that it is only constitutional for Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch if it provides an "intelligible principle" as guidance. The outcome of the case could have greatly influenced the broad delegations of power Congress has made to the federal executive branch, but it did not.

United States v. Carmen Beach, 324 U.S. 193 (1945), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Mann Act's criminalization of human transportation involving interstate or foreign commerce "with intent that such individual engage in prostitution" applies even within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the conviction of Hans Max Haupt—father of Herbert Hans Haupt— for treason, and that after the Constitution's Treason Clause's two witness requirement is satisfied, it does not preclude the prosecution from entering out-of-court confessions into evidence.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Hicks, Xenophon (31 July 1944). "Majority Opinion - Robinson v. United States, 144 F.2d 392 (6th Cir. 1944)". casetext.com. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
  2. ↑ "18 U.S. Code § 1201 - Kidnapping". law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
  3. ↑ Wilbur, Curtis Dwight (8 April 1941). "Majority Opinion - Robinson v. Johnston, 118 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1941)". casetext.com. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
  4. ↑ Healy, William (8 April 1941). "Dissenting Opinion (Healy) - Robinson v. Johnston, 118 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1941)". casetext.com. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
  5. ↑ Healy, William (10 August 1942). "Majority Opinion - Robinson v. Johnston, 130 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1942)". casetext.com.
  6. ↑ Wilbur, Curtis Dwight (10 August 1942). "Dissenting Opinion (Wilbur) - Robinson v. Johnston, 130 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1942)". casetext.com. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
  7. ↑ Rocha, Michael Joseph (9 August 1943). "Court Opinion and Order - Robinson v. Johnston, 50 F. Supp. 774 (N.D. Cal. 1943)". casetext.com. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
  8. ↑ Black, Hugo (5 March 1945). "Majority Opinion - Robinson v. United States, 324 U.S. 282 (1945)". supreme.justia.com. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
  9. ↑ Rutledge, Wiley (5 March 1945). "Dissenting Opinion (Rutledge) - Robinson v. United States, 324 U.S. 282 (1945)". supreme.justia.com. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
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.