Toth v. Quarles | |
---|---|
Argued February 8, 1955 Reargued October 13, 1955 Decided November 7, 1955 | |
Full case name | United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, Secretary of the Air Force |
Citations | 350 U.S. 11 ( more ) 76 S. Ct. 1; 100 L. Ed. 2d 8 |
Reargument | Reargument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | Toth v. Talbott, 114 F. Supp. 468 (D.D.C. 1953); reversed sub. nom. Talbott v. United States ex rel. Toth, 215 F.2d 22 (D.C. Cir. 1954); cert. granted, 348 U.S. 809(1954). |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Black, joined by Warren, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan |
Dissent | Reed, joined by Burton, Minton |
Dissent | Minton, joined by Burton, Reed |
United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that expanded the rights of citizens to civilian trials, holding that an ex-serviceman cannot be court-martialed for crimes alleged during his military service.
The United States Air Force alleged that the petitioner, Robert W. Toth, committed a murder while he was on active duty in Korea. (On Sept 27, 1952 while on guard duty at a air base in South Korea, Toth and airman Thomas Kinder had taken into custody a drunken South Korean Civilian named Bang Soon Kil who had grabbed at Toth arm who then pistol-whipped the Civilian. Toth and Kinder were ordered by their superior Lt George Schreiber to kill Bang. Schreiber and Kinder then still in the military were court-martialed: Schreiber was sentenced to life in prison (reduced to 5 years in prison; forfeiture of pay and dishonorable discharge; he served 20 months before being dismissed from service); Kinder was sentenced to life sentence (reduced to two years in prison and a dishonorable discharge; the discharge was later suspended, allowing him to return to service). [1] They argued that while they knew about the murder while Toth was in the armed forces, they didn't know the identity of the man who did it so Toth was honorably discharged. Donald A. Quarles, at the time the Secretary of the Air Force, argued that as the crimes occurred during Toth's military service, the military could constitutionally try him. [2]
The case mostly dealt with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a 1950 law passed by the 81st United States Congress and signed by President Harry S. Truman, and whether or not certain provisions of it were constitutional; that is to say, whether or not Congress could deprive ex-service members of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. [2]
In the majority opinion, decided 6–3, Justice Hugo Black wrote that "[the UCMJ] is not a valid exercise of the power granted Congress in Article I of the Constitution." [3] The decision in Quarles would prove as an important precedent which the Court would rely on two years later in the landmark Reid v. Covert ruling. [4] Whereas Quarles dealt with the case of an ex-servicemember, Covert would deny the government the ability to try any US citizen by military tribunal, even citizens abroad. This important precedent was re-affirmed in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), where the Court ruled that while the US government may detain enemy combatants abroad, those detained must have "the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority" for the detention to be constitutional. [5]
Those who dissented gave various reasons. While Justice Sherman Minton agreed that civilians "not under the jurisdiction of the Military Code" have a right to a civilian trial, he argued that the Court had erred because Toth was not a "full-fledged civilian". [6] Justice Stanley F. Reed on the other hand, argued that the solution to the question should have come from Congress amending the UCMJ and not via a Court order. [7]
As regards Toth, civilian authorities would never retry him; a 1989 article in the Military Law Review declares: "Toth literally got away with murder." [8]
Philip Pendleton Barbour was the tenth speaker of the United States House of Representatives and an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He is the only individual to serve in both positions.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of the system of military justice of the armed forces of the United States. The UCMJ was established by the United States Congress in accordance with their constitutional authority, per Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power. .. to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces" of the United States.
A military discharge is given when a member of the armed forces is released from their obligation to serve. Each country's military has different types of discharge. They are generally based on whether the persons completed their training and then fully and satisfactorily completed their term of service. Other types of discharge are based on factors such as the quality of their service, whether their service had to be ended prematurely due to humanitarian or medical reasons, whether they had been found to have drug or alcohol dependency issues and whether they were complying with treatment and counseling, and whether they had demerits or punishments for infractions or were convicted of any crimes. These factors affect whether they will be asked or allowed to re-enlist and whether they qualify for benefits after their discharge.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is an Article I court that exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the United States Armed Forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The court reviews decisions from the intermediate appellate courts of the services: the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Guantanamo military commissions were established by President George W. Bush through a military order on November 13, 2001, to try certain non-citizen terrorism suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison. To date, there have been a total of eight convictions in the military commissions, six through plea agreements. Several of the eight convictions have been overturned in whole or in part on appeal by U.S. federal courts.
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to revoke citizenship as a punishment for a crime. The ruling's reference to "evolving standards of decency" is frequently cited in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), was a case of the United States Supreme Court that during World War II upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of eight German saboteurs, in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of unlawful combatants.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a 6–2 landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that United States citizen civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by a United States military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury. Additionally, a plurality of the Court also reaffirmed the president’s ability to enter into international executive agreements, though it held that such agreements cannot contradict federal law or the Constitution.
Courts-martial of the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The American Bar Association has issued a Model State Code of Military Justice, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S.
In the United States military, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) is an appellate court that reviews certain court martial convictions of Army personnel.
Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.
Reduction in rank may refer to three separate concepts:
The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CGCCA) is the intermediate appellate court for criminal convictions in the U.S. Coast Guard. It is located in Washington, DC.
The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) is an independent appellate judicial body authorized by Congress and established by the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force pursuant to the exclusive authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(a). The Court hears and decides appeals of United States Air Force court-martial convictions and appeals pendente lite. Its appellate judges are assigned to the Court by The Judge Advocate General. The Judge Advocate General instructs court-martial convening authorities to take action in accordance with the Court's decisions.
A blue discharge, also called blue ticket, was a form of administrative military discharge formerly issued by the United States beginning in 1916. It was neither honorable nor dishonorable. The blue ticket became the discharge of choice for commanders seeking to remove homosexual service members from the ranks. They were also issued disproportionately to African Americans.
John E. Hatley is a former first sergeant who was prosecuted by the United States Army in 2008 for murdering four Iraqi detainees near Baghdad, Iraq in 2006. He was convicted in 2009 and sentenced to life in prison at the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks. He was released on parole in October 2020. Hatley is colloquially associated with a group of US military personnel convicted of war crimes known as the Leavenworth 10.
The Judge Advocate General's Corps, also known as JAG or JAG Corps, is the military justice branch or specialty of the United States Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates.
Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, the Court recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty, although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.
United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
{{cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (help)