People v. Hall

Last updated

People v. Hall
Seal of the Supreme Court of California.svg
Decided 1854
Citation(s)People v. Hall,4Cal399(1854).
Court membership
Judges sittingChief Justice Murray, Justices Solomon Heydenfeldt and Alexander Wells
Case opinions
Decision byMurray, joined by Heydenfeldt
DissentWells

The People of the State of California v. George W. Hall or People v. Hall, 4 Cal. 399 , was an appealed murder case in the 1850s, in which the California Supreme Court established that Chinese Americans and Chinese immigrants had no rights to testify against white citizens. The opinion was delivered in 1854 by Chief Justice Hugh Murray with the concurrence of Justice Solomon Heydenfeldt and the dissent of Justice Alexander Wells. [1]

Contents

The ruling effectively freed Hall, a white man, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Ling Sing, a Chinese miner in Nevada County. Three Chinese witnesses had testified to the killing. [1] [2]

Background

Accession of California to the United States

With the conclusion of the Mexican–American War, the area of Alta California (which contains the modern U.S. state of California and some other states to its east) came under the control of the United States. Formally, the area was ceded to the United States as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California formally joined the United States as the 31st state. Other parts of Alta California that became all or part of later U.S. states included Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming.

California Gold Rush and Chinese migration to California

In early 1848, gold was discovered in California. This led to the California Gold Rush, where people from the United States, Mexico, and China arrived at California in search of gold. Although mining was the original attraction, many Chinese moved into the cities to provide services. Although their competition in mining was not liked by the whites in California, their presence in city services was initially highly appreciated. [3]

Chinese Labor Strike of 1867

In June 1867 a labor strike occurred in the Sierra Nevada mountains by Chinese workers building the Transcontinental Railroad. [4] Because the workers had no formal rights to complain, they mounted one of the earliest instances of peaceful, Confucian-style collective action in a situation where no formal civil rights exist. [4] : 8–9 

Section 14 of the Act concerning Crime and Punishment, passed in 1850, stated that "No black or mulatto person, or Indian, shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a white man." [5] [1] As written, the Section did not appear to apply to Chinese witnesses.

Between 1849 and 1854, Chinese had made use of the California court systems, with varying degrees of success. For instance, Ah Toy, a woman from China who arrived at San Francisco in 1848, started a brothel in 1850, becoming the first Chinese madam operating in the United States. She attempted to use California's court system to seek justice twice:

Case decision

In 1853, a California court convicted George Hall, a white man, of the murder of Ling Sing, a Chinese miner, based on the testimony of Chinese witnesses. [2] George Hall appealed the verdict, arguing that the testimony of the Chinese witnesses should not be accepted and that Section 394 of the Act Concerning Civil Cases, which barred the use of testimony by blacks, mulattoes, and Indians against whites, should also be extended to banning the testimony of Chinese. The California Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Hugh Murray and joined by Justice Solomon Heydenfeldt, sided with Hall. [1] [2]

The case has been described as "containing some of the most offensive racial rhetoric to be found in the annals of California appellate jurisprudence" and "the worst statutory interpretation case in history." [9]

In support of its decision to include Chinese people within the class prohibited from giving evidence in favor of or against a white man, the California Supreme Court in the majority opinion stated the following about Chinese people: [10]

"The same rule which would admit them to testify, would admit them to all the equal rights of citizenship, and we might soon see them at the polls, in the jury box, upon the bench, and in our legislative halls."

"This is not a speculation which exists in the excited and over-heated imagination of the patriot and statesman, but it is an actual and present danger."

"The anomalous spectacle of a distinct people, living in our community, recognizing no laws of this State, except through necessity, bringing with them their prejudices and national feuds, in which they indulge in open violation of law; whose mendacity is proverbial; a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point, as their history has shown; differing in language, opinions, color, and physical conformation; between whom and ourselves nature has placed an impassable difference, is now presented, and for them is claimed, not only the right to swear away the life of a citizen, but the further privilege of participating with us in administering the affairs of our Government."

The case had a dissenting opinion written by Justice Alexander Wells which simply stated: "From the opinion of the Chief Justice, I most respectfully dissent." [11]

Consequences and responses

The case did not make violence against Chinese de jure legal: it was still possible to convict a white person of murdering Chinese if credible white witnesses, or other reliable evidence, could be produced. However, it de facto made it much easier for whites to get away with violence against Chinese. [2]

Ah Toy, the successful Chinese madam, closed down her brothel in 1854. While this was primarily because of the 1854 anti-prostitution laws instituted in California, it is also believed to have been motivated in part by the increased risk of harassment due to the decision in People v. Hall.

In January 1855, William Speer, the Presbyterian minister in San Francisco Chinatown, responded strongly, "The principles of the Magna Carta, the prerogatives of juries, the rights of judges and advocates, Republicanism and Christianity, and common humanity are all outraged by this iniquitous decision of the Supreme Court of California". [12] : 22 

In April 1857, the San Francisco Evening Bulletin editorialized, "We regret this action, based as it is entirely on prejudice, and can only express our conviction that a period will ultimately arrive when it will be clear to all that the law as it stands is mischievous and prejudicial to the highest degree to the public interests." [12] : 294 n.98 

In 1860, Pun Chi, a businessman from China, wrote an impassioned appeal challenging the verdict in People v. Hall and in general challenging the negative view of Chinese in California. His appeal was translated to English by the Presbyterian minister William Speer in 1870. [13]

A state law passed in 1873 invalidated all testimony laws, and therefore overrode the decision in People v. Hall.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

<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 in the following federal judicial districts:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of California</span> Highest judicial court in the U.S. state of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts. Since 1850, the court has issued many influential decisions in a variety of areas including torts, property, civil and constitutional rights, and criminal law.

Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case where a California law prohibiting the bringing of a non-resident "indigent person" into the state was struck down as unconstitutional.

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.

In criminal law, self-incrimination is the act of making a statement that exposes oneself to an accusation of criminal liability or prosecution. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chinaman's chance</span> Figure of speech meaning little or no chance

Chinaman's chance is an American idiom which means that a person has little or no chance at success, synonymous with similar idioms of improbability such as a snowball's chance in hell or when pigs fly. Although the origin of the phrase is unclear, it may refer to the historical misfortunes which were suffered by Chinese-American immigrants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

Ah Toy (Chinese: 亞彩; Sidney Lau: Aa3 Coi2; 18 May 1829 – 1 February 1928) was a Chinese American sex worker and madam in San Francisco, California during the California Gold Rush, and the first Chinese sex worker in San Francisco. Arriving from Hong Kong in 1848, she became the best-known Asian woman in the American frontier.

Solomon Heydenfeldt was an American attorney who was an associate justice of the California Supreme Court from 1852 to 1857. He was the second Jewish justice of the court, after Henry A. Lyons, but was the first elected by direct vote of the people.

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble, 62 U.S. 366 (1858), was a companion case to the more well-known Fellows v. Blacksmith (1857). At the time Fellows was decided, this case had reached the U.S. Supreme Court but had not yet been argued.

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand.

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state may not enforce its rules of evidence, such as rules excluding hearsay, in a fashion that disallows a criminal defendant from presenting reliable exculpatory evidence and thus denies the defendant a fair trial.

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency and allowed for the arrest and the deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that, in criminal prosecutions, the defendant has a right "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..." In this case, a person arrested in Texas for robbery was deprived of the ability to cross-examine a witness when the lower court allowed the introduction of a transcript of that witness's earlier testimony at a preliminary proceeding instead of compelling attendance by the witness at trial.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 "THE PEOPLE, RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE W. HALL, APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of California, 1854" . Retrieved March 20, 2016.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Smith, S. E. "Laying Some History On You: People v. Hall" . Retrieved March 20, 2016.
  3. ↑ Henry Kittredge Norton. "The Chinese" . Retrieved March 20, 2016.
  4. 1 2 Ryan, Patrick Spaulding (May 5, 2022). "Saving Face Without Words: A Confucian Perspective on The Strike of 1867". International Journal of Humanities, Art and Social Studies. forthcoming. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4067005. S2CID   248036295 . Retrieved May 22, 2022.
  5. ↑ California State Assembly. "An Act concerning Crimes and Punishments". First Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 99 § 14 p. 229. No black or mulatto person, or Indian, shall be permitted to give evidence in favor of, or against, any white person. Every person who shall have one eight part or more of Negro blood shall be deemed a mulatto, and every person who shall have one half of Indian blood shall be deemed an Indian.
  6. ↑ "A short history of bordellos in San Francisco, part 2. The madams behind the whole sordid business". Marina Times. September 1, 2012. Retrieved March 20, 2016.
  7. ↑ Barmann, Jay (April 3, 2015). "San Francisco's 16 Greatest Infamous Local Legends". Archived from the original on March 31, 2016. Retrieved March 20, 2016.
  8. ↑ "Chinese Immigrants and the Gold Rush". PBS . Retrieved March 20, 2016.
  9. ↑ Traynor, Michael. "The Infamous Case of People v. Hall (1854)". California Supreme Court Historical Society Newsletter (Spring/Summer 2017): 2.
  10. ↑ People v. Hall, 4 Cal. 399, 404-405 (October 1854).
  11. ↑ People v. Hall, 4 Cal. 399, 405 (October 1854).
  12. 1 2 McClain, Charles J. (1994). In Search for Equality: The Chinese Struggle against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN   0-520-20514-6.
  13. ↑ ""We Chinese Are Viewed Like Thieves and Enemies": Pun Chi Appeals to Congress to Protect the Rights of Chinese, ca. 1860". History Matters. Retrieved March 20, 2016.
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.