United States v. Seale

Last updated

United States v. Seale is a federal criminal case in the United States, in which Ku Klux Klan member James Ford Seale was prosecuted and convicted for his role in the racially motivated murders in 1964 of two black teens.

Contents

The case was procedurally unusual in that it was initiated in 2007, and it was unclear whether the statute of limitations had expired due to revision of the governing criminal statute in the interim. The trial court ruled against Seale on the issue, which was affirmed by an evenly divided appellate court. The appellate court then took the highly unusual step of seeking certification of the legal question to the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking guidance on whether the revisions retroactively changed the applicable limitations period. The Supreme Court dismissed the certification without comment.

Background

The case has its beginnings in the 1964 kidnapping of two black teenagers. After they had been beaten, they had weights attached and were thrown into the Mississippi River to drown. [1] [2] [3] After an investigation, James Ford Seale and another man, allegedly members of the Ku Klux Klan, were indicted for the murder. [4] The charges were dropped because, it was later alleged, the police were colluding with the Klan. [5] Nevertheless, the House Committee on Un-American Activities called Seale to testify and placed its belief that he had committed the crime in its records. [4] Seale then dropped off the radar, and was thought dead until 2005. [5] In 2007, he was indicted by the federal government for the crime. [1]

The case and the timeliness issue

The federal kidnapping statute doesn't specify a time limit on prosecutions, so the general limits of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3281 and 3282 supply the time limit on prosecution, if there is any. There is no time limit on a capital crime (section 3281), but non-capital crimes are subject to a five-year statute of limitations (section 3282). Seale moved to dismiss the indictment on the theory that the latter applied to him. Although kidnapping was a capital offense in 1964, Congress detached the death penalty from it in the mid-1970s in response to United States v. Jackson , 390 U.S. 570 (1968), and Furman v. Georgia , 408 U.S. 238 (1972). This should be given retroactive effect, Seale contended, making his offense subject to section 3282's five year limit, and the indictment accordingly untimely. The district court rejected this argument. The case proceeded to trial, the jury found Seale guilty on all counts (helped, no doubt, by an FBI agent's testimony that Seale had admitted the crime after his arrest [6] ), and three life sentences ensued.

On appeal, Seale raised seven issues, but a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided only one of them. It embraced Seale's argument that the prosecution was time-barred; because that decision terminated the case, the panel did not address the remaining issues. The full Fifth Circuit agreed to hear the case en banc, vacating the panel's decision. Although the en banc court decided to hear the case, however, it could not decide how to decide the case, dividing nine to nine. The upshot was that the panel opinion was vacated, and the district court's denial of Seale's motion was nominally affirmed without opinion. The case was remanded to the panel for consideration of the remaining six issues raised on appeal.

Rather than await the panel's decision or appeal, [7] Seale asked the Fifth Circuit to invoke a rarely used procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) and Supreme Court Rule 19 allow a federal court of appeals to certify a question to the Supreme Court, bypassing (to an extent) the usual appellate process. The procedure is not commonly used; only four cases certified have been accepted by the court in more than sixty years, [8] the last one in 1981. [9] Nevertheless, on Seale's motion, a majority of the Fifth Circuit agreed to certify the question of whether section 3281 or 3282 is controlling for a kidnapping that occurred in 1964.

Judge Harold DeMoss, writing for the majority, [10] premised certification both on the unusual posture of the particular case and its implications for the broader considerations at issue, noting that the government is investigating several other cases from the 1960s that may raise the same question of time limits. [11] Writing for the four dissenters, Chief Judge Edith Jones noted that the Supreme Court was unlikely to take the case, that the Department of Justice had not made it clear that other cases involving the same question are in the pipeline, as the majority had contended, and that certification was inappropriate when the panel might dispose of the case on other grounds on remand.

It is in the discretion of the Supreme Court to answer certified questions or not. The court has indicated that such actions are disfavored, and it has rarely taken such cases, but such cases have been taken before. [7] [12]

Supreme Court dismissal

The Supreme Court dismissed the certified question on November 2, 2009. In a statement respecting the dismissal joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

This certificate presents us with a pure question of law that may well determine the outcome of a number of cases of ugly racial violence remaining from the 1960s ... [and which is] narrow, debatable, and important. I recognize that the question reaches us in an interlocutory posture, ... [y]et I see no benefit and significant cost to postponing the question’s resolution. A prompt answer from this Court will expedite the termination of this litigation and determine whether other similar cases may be prosecuted. In these unusual circumstances, certification can serve the interests not only of legal clarity but also of prosecutorial economy and the proper administration and expedition of judicial business. [13]

The case will now return to the District Court for consideration of the residuum of issues, per the Fifth Circuit's original en banc decision.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States courts of appeals</span> Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. The courts of appeals are divided into 13 "Circuits". Eleven of the circuits are numbered "First" through "Eleventh" and cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders. The District of Columbia Circuit covers only Washington, DC. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law. The courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking, with by far the largest share of these cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. Appeals from decisions of the courts of appeals can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In law, an en banc session is when all the judges of a court sit to hear a case, not just one judge or a smaller panel of judges. For courts like the United States Courts of Appeals in which each case is heard by a three-judge panel instead of the entire court, en banc review is usually used only for unusually complex or important cases or when the court believes there is an especially significant issue at stake. En banc is a French phrase meaning "on the bench".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia, established January 1, 1985, is an intermediate appellate court of 17 judges that hears appeals from decisions of Virginia's circuit courts and the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission. The Court sits in panels of at least three judges, and sometimes hears cases en banc. Appeals from the Court of Appeals go to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

The Texas Courts of Appeals are part of the Texas judicial system. In Texas, all cases appealed from district and county courts, criminal and civil, go to one of the fourteen intermediate courts of appeals, with one exception: death penalty cases. The latter are taken directly to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the court of last resort for criminal matters in the State of Texas. The highest court for civil and juvenile matters is the Texas Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court (SCOTX) and the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) each have nine members per the Texas Constitution, the sizes of the intermediate courts of appeals are set by statute and vary greatly, depending on historical case filings and so that the justices on each court can timely adjudicate the volume of cases regularly before them. The total number of intermediate appellate court seats currently stands at 80, ranging from three, four, six, seven, nine, and thirteen (Dallas) per court.

<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.

Ariad Pharmaceuticals et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 598 F.3d 1336, is a United States court case regarding accusations of infringement by Eli Lilly on U.S. patent 6,410,516 held by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals. The Federal Circuit ruled en banc to invalidate the patent for a lack of sufficient description of the invention. Amici briefing before the en banc panel was intensive, with 26 separate briefs filed, and the final decision has been heavily discussed by legal commentators. Its ultimate impact on biotechnology patents remains to be determined.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Ford Seale</span> American Ku Klux Klan member and convict

James Ford Seale was a Ku Klux Klan member charged by the U.S. Justice Department on January 24, 2007, and subsequently convicted on June 14, 2007, for the May 1964 kidnapping and murder of Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles Eddie Moore, two African-American young men in Meadville, Mississippi. At the time of his arrest, Seale worked at a lumber plant in Roxie, Mississippi. He also worked as a crop duster and was a police officer in Louisiana briefly in the 1970s. He was a member of the militant Klan organization known as the Silver Dollar Group, whose members were identified with a silver dollar; occasionally minted the year of the member's birth.

Mississippi Cold Case is a 2007 feature documentary produced by David Ridgen of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about the Ku Klux Klan murders of two 19-year-old black men, Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles Eddie Moore, in Southwest Mississippi in May 1964 during the Civil Rights Movement and Freedom Summer. It also explores the 21st-century quest for justice by the brother of Moore. The documentary won numerous awards as a documentary and for its investigative journalism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Certified question</span>

In the law of the United States, a certified question is a formal request by one court from another court, usually but not always in another jurisdiction, for an opinion on a question of law.

<i>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland</i>

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute. The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a narrowing construction on the statute. Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case.

A judicial panel is a set of judges who sit together to hear a cause of action, most frequently an appeal from a ruling of a trial court judge. Panels are used in contrast to single-judge appeals, and en banc hearings, which involves all of the judges of that court. Most national supreme courts sit as panels.

Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Walmart stores.

South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498 (1986), is an important U.S. Supreme Court precedent for aboriginal title in the United States decided in the wake of County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State (1985). Distinguishing Oneida II, the Court held that federal policy did not preclude the application of a state statute of limitations to the land claim of a tribe that had been terminated, such as the Catawba tribe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Certificate of division</span> Source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States

A certificate of division was a source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1802 to 1911. Created by the Judiciary Act of 1802, the certification procedure was available only where the circuit court sat with a full panel of two: both the resident district judge and the circuit-riding Supreme Court justice. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, he did not have "the privilege of dividing the court when alone."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jeff Brown (judge)</span> American judge (born 1970)

Jeffrey Vincent Brown is a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and a former associate justice of the Texas Supreme Court. He was appointed to the U.S. District Court by President Donald Trump.

<i>Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder</i>

Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.

Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., 363 U.S. 207 (1960) and 377 U.S. 179 (1964), was a conflict of laws case that was twice heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, with an initial decision remanding the case for further proceedings in 1960, and a final resolution in 1964.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James C. Ho</span> American judge (born 1973)

James Chiun-Yue Ho is a Taiwanese-born American jurist who serves as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He was nominated to the Fifth Circuit by President Donald Trump, and took office in 2018. Ho formerly served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2008 to 2010.

Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute.

References

  1. 1 2 Elliot, Jack (July 30, 2009). "High court asked to review civil rights-era case". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-08-03.[ dead link ]
  2. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (July 30, 2009). "A question for the Court, in a noteworthy case". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on August 3, 2009. Retrieved 2009-08-03.
  3. ↑ "Mississippi Klansman in 1964 Kidnapping and Murder of Two African-American Men". Australia News. Archived from the original on 2012-03-05. Retrieved 2009-08-03.
  4. 1 2 Ladd, Donna (January 31, 2007). "James Ford Seale: A Trail of Documents Tells the Story". Jackson Free Press. Retrieved 2009-08-03.
  5. 1 2 Mitchell, Jerry (July 31, 2009). "U.S. Supreme Court asked to weigh in on Seale case". Jackson Clarion-Ledger. Retrieved 2009-08-03.[ dead link ]
  6. ↑ Mitchell, Jerry (June 5, 2009). "Miss. Klansman's conviction upheld". Jackson Clarion-Ledger. Retrieved 2009-08-03.[ permanent dead link ]
  7. 1 2 Coyle, Marcia (August 3, 2009). "Supreme Court Asked to Take Certified Question for Only Fifth Time in Six-Plus Decades". The National Law Journal. Retrieved 2009-08-03.
  8. ↑ Order certifying a question to the Supreme Court in United States v. Seale, no. 07-60732, at 9 (5th Cir., Jul 30 2009) (Jones, C.J., dissenting).
  9. ↑ Vladeck, Steve (July 31, 2009). "Certifying Questions to the Supreme Court: Is Seale the Perfect Storm?". Prawfsblag. Retrieved 2009-08-03.
  10. ↑ The panel's certification opinion was designated as being a per curiam, but Chief Judge Jones' dissent identifies Judge DeMoss as the author.
  11. ↑ See also Mitchell, Jerry (August 25, 2007). "Ex-Klansman Is Sentenced to Life for Killings in 1964". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-03.; Garrow, David (July 8, 2007). "Unfinished business - Yes, we should revisit civil rights 'cold cases.'". L.A. Times. Retrieved 2009-08-05. (noting that in 2007, Congress "authorize[d] up to $13.5 million a year in new federal spending for investigations into 'cold case' killings").
  12. ↑ Justice Stevens, in his separate opinion, noted that the Supreme Court had not accepted a certified question since 1981. United States v. Seale , 558 U.S. ___ (2009) (Stevens, J.).
  13. ↑ United States v. Seale, No. 09–166 (statement regarding dismissal of the certified question by Stevens, J.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
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.