Wilson v. Girard

Last updated
Wilson v. Girard
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued July 8, 1957
Decided July 11, 1957
Full case nameCharles E. Wilson, Secretary of Defense, et al., v. William S. Girard, United States Army Specialist 3/C.
Citations354 U.S. 524 ( more )
77 S. Ct. 1409; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1544
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorGirard v. Wilson, 152 F. Supp. 21 (D.D.C. 1957) (denying writ of habeas corpus , but granting injunction to petitioner)
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Charles E. Whittaker
Case opinion
Per curiam
Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement

Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to stop the executive branch from handing United States Army soldier William S. Girard over to Japanese authorities for trial. Girard was accused of killing a Japanese woman while assigned to the U.S. Army in Japan, precipitating a major international incident remembered as the "Girard incident."

Contents

Facts

On 30 January 1957, Naka Sakai, a 46-year-old Japanese housewife and mother of six, entered Sōmagahara Air Base in Soma, Gunma Prefecture, for the purpose of collecting spent shell casings to sell as scrap metal. [1] U.S. Army Specialist Third Class William S. Girard, a 21-year-old enlisted man from Ottawa, Illinois, used a grenade launcher mounted on an M1 Garand rifle to fire a spent grenade cartridge at Sakai, which hit her in the back and killed her. [2] [3] Girard then was arrested and held by U.S. authorities, [4] but Japanese authorities indicted him for criminal homicide. [5] Under the terms of the U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) then in force, both the United States and Japan could claim jurisdiction over his prosecution. However, the United States' claim had precedence if Girard was "on duty" when the suspected crime occurred. The United States argued that Girard was in fact "on duty," and that he should therefore be tried by US court martial. [6] The Japanese government, however, held that Girard's actions had taken place during a period of rest, making him subject to Japanese law. [2] After much discussion, the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration decided that as a matter of political expediency, they would hand Girard over, given that the case was causing great controversy in Japan and threatened to harm the U.S.–Japan Alliance.

Girard sued to stop his surrender to the Japanese. He petitioned for habeas corpus , claiming he was held unlawfully by the Army. This was denied by the district court, but the district court did enjoin the Army from handing him over to the Japanese. Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision

The court first noted the principle that a sovereign nation always has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute crimes in its territory, unless it consents to prosecution by some other authority. The court then cited the U.S.–Japan SOFA for the conditions of Japan's consent to U.S. jurisdiction in this case. One of those conditions was that the U.S. could waive its jurisdiction, which is what the U.S. did in this case. [7] The court then stated that it saw no constitutional problems with such a diplomatic agreement, and that therefore the "wisdom" of such agreements are completely within the realm of the political branches. [8] The court upheld the district court's denial of habeas corpus, and reversed the injunction. [8] This cleared the way for the Executive Branch to hand Girard over to the Japanese.

Related Research Articles

<i>Ex parte Merryman</i> United States legal case

Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (No. 9487), is a well-known and controversial U.S. federal court case that arose out of the American Civil War. It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" under the Constitution's Suspension Clause, when Congress was in recess and therefore unavailable to do so itself. More generally, the case raised questions about the ability of the executive branch to decline enforcement of judicial decisions when the executive believes them to be erroneous and harmful to its own legal powers.

Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869), is a United States Supreme Court decision that examines the extent of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review decisions of lower courts under federal statutory law.

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.

Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast, which it had found not to violate citizen rights in its Korematsu v. United States decision on the same date, the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a 6-to-2 landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that U.S. citizen civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by U.S. 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.

The Girard incident refers to the killing of Japanese civilian Naka Sakai by the United States Forces Japan soldier William S. Girard in Soma, Gunma Prefecture on January 30, 1957. Sakai's death caused outrage from the Japanese public and the incident led to disputes between Japan and the U.S. Army over jurisdiction, resulting in the U.S. Supreme Court case Wilson v. Girard. Girard was demoted by the U.S. Army and received a three-year suspended sentence from Japanese authorities.

2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006.

U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement 1960 agreement between Japan and the United States

U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement is an agreement between Japan and the United States signed on 19 January 1960 in Washington, the same day as the revised U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. It is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) as stipulated in article VI of that treaty, which referred to "a separate agreement" governing the "use of [...] facilities and areas [granted to the U.S.] as well as the status of United States armed forces in Japan". It replaced the earlier "U.S.-Japan Administrative Agreement" that governed such issues under the original 1951 security treaty.

The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) is the intermediate appellate court for criminal convictions in the United States Navy and the Marine Corps.

United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals United States Article I court

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.

Military Commissions Act of 2006 Former United States law

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes".

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."

On November 2, 2002, U.S. Marine Corps Major Michael Brown attempted an indecent assault on a Filipina bartender in Okinawa, Japan. The bartender accused Brown of attempting to rape her and of throwing her cell phone into a nearby river; Brown denied the rape charges. The victim later recanted and attempted to withdraw the accusation, though prosecutors presented evidence that she had received a cash payment just before doing so.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. In 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

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."

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.

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 is an act of Congress that significantly expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus. Passed February 5, 1867, the Act amended the Judiciary Act of 1789 to grant the courts the power to issue writs of habeas corpus "in all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or any treaty or law of the United States." Prior to the Act's passage, prisoners in the custody of one of the states who wished to challenge the legality of their detention could petition for a writ of habeas corpus only in state courts; the federal court system was barred from issuing writs of habeas corpus in their cases. The Act also permitted the court "to go beyond the return" and question the truth of the jailer's stated justification for detaining the petitioning prisoner, whereas prior to the Act courts were technically bound to accept the jailer's word that the prisoner was actually being held for the reason stated. The Act largely restored habeas corpus following its 1863 suspension by Congress, ensuring that anyone arrested after its passage could challenge their detention in the federal courts, but denied habeas relief to anyone who was already in military custody for any military offense or for having aided the Confederacy.

Criminal law in the Waite Court

During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases. In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice. Notable cases include United States v. Cruikshank (1875), United States v. Reese (1875), Reynolds v. United States (1878), Wilkerson v. Utah (1879), the Trade-Mark Cases (1879), Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), Pace v. Alabama (1883), United States v. Harris (1883), Ex parte Crow Dog (1883), Hurtado v. California (1884), Clawson v. United States (1885), Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), United States v. Kagama (1886), Ker v. Illinois (1886), and Mugler v. Kansas (1887).

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.

Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. 397 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a State judge has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus, or to continue proceedings under the writ when issued, for the discharge of a person held by the authority, or claim and color of the authority, of the United States by an officer of that government.

References

  1. Kapur, Nick (2018). Japan at the Crossroads: Conflict and Compromise after Anpo. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 16–17.
  2. 1 2 Harnisch, Larry. "Soldier kills woman", Los Angeles Times, retrieved November 27, 2007.
  3. Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524, 526 (1957).
  4. "on or about January 30, 1957, he was arrested and thereafter held in confinement by the military authorities of the United States and is presently held in such confinement . . ." Girard v. Wilson, 152F. Supp.21 , 22(D.D.C.1957).
  5. "Japan indicted him for causing death by wounding." Wilson, 354 U.S. at 526.
  6. "The United States claimed the right to try Girard upon the ground that his act, as certified by his commanding officer, was ‘done in the performance of official duty’ and therefore the United States had primary jurisdiction." Wilson, 354 U.S. at 529.
  7. Wilson, 354 U.S. at 529.
  8. 1 2 Wilson, 354 U.S. at 530.