Grisham v. Hagan
| Decision Date | 18 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 58,58 |
| Parties | Albert H. GRISHAM, Petitioner, v. Charles R. HAGAN, Warden |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Charles Wolfe Kalp, Lewisburg, Pa., and Frederick Bernays Wiener, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
This case tests by habeas corpus the validity of Article 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 802, 10 U.S.C.A. § 802,1 as applied to a civilian tried by court- martial for a capital offense while employed overseas by the United States Army. It is a companion case to Kinsella v. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 80 S.Ct. 297, which involves the application of the same Article to non-capital offenses committed by dependents accompanying soldiers stationed outside the United States, and to McElroy v. Gaugliardo and Wilson v. Bohlender, 361 U.S. 281, 80 S.Ct. 305, involving non-capital offenses committed by armedservices employees while stationed overseas—all of which cases are decided today.
Petitioner, a civilian employee of the United States Army attached to an Army installation in France, was tried by a general court-martial for the capital offense of premeditated murder as defined in Article 118(1) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 10 U.S.C.A. § 918(1). He was found guilty of the lesser and included offense of unpremeditated murder, and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for the term of his natural life. The sentence was subsequently reduced to 35 years. While serving this sentence at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, he filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that Article 2(11) was unconstitutional as applied to him, for the reason that Congress lacked the power to deprive him of a civil trial affording all of the protections of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. The writ was dismissed, Grisham v. Taylor, D.C., 161 F.Supp. 112, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 3 Cir., 261 F.2d 204. In the light of the opinion of this Court on the rehearing in Reid v. Covert, 1957, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 as well as that of the Court of Appeals on the issue of the severability of Article 2(11) in Guagliardo v. McElroy, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 112, 259 F.2d 927,2 we granted certiorari. 1959, 359 U.S. 978, 79 S.Ct. 900, 3 L.Ed.2d 927.
We are of the opinion that this case is controlled by Reid v. Covert, supra. It decided that the application of the Article to civilian dependents charged with capital offenses while accompanying servicemen outside the United States was unconstitutional as violative of Article III and the Fifth and Sxith Amendments. We have carefully considered the Government's position as to the distinctions between civilian dependents and civilian employees, especially its voluminous historical materials relating to court-martial jurisdiction. However, the considerations pointed out in Covert have equal applicability here. Those who controlled the majority there held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Rivers
...80 S.Ct. 297, 4 L.Ed.2d 268 (1960); McElroy v. United States, 361 U.S. 281, 80 S.Ct. 305, 4 L.Ed.2d 282 (1960); Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 310, 4 L.Ed.2d 279 (1960); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.......
-
Larrabee v. Del Toro
...we must assess whether the military courts properly exercised jurisdiction in Larrabee's case. See Grisham v. Hagan , 361 U.S. 278, 279–80, 80 S.Ct. 310, 4 L.Ed.2d 279 (1960) (giving no deference to a court-martial's finding that it had jurisdiction over the accused); Guagliardo , 361 U.S. ......
-
Solorio v. United States
...ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 14-15, 76 S.Ct. 1, 3-4, 100 L.Ed. 8 (1955) (discharged veteran); see also Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 310, 4 L.Ed.2d 279 (1960) (civilian military employee in capital case); McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281, 286, 80......
-
Laird v. Tatum 8212 288
...the Armed Forces overseas, McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281, 80 S.Ct. 305, 4 L.Ed.2d 282; Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 310, 4 L.Ed.2d 279, nor civilian dependents of military personnel accompanying them overseas, Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singlet......
-
ORTIZ V. UNITED STATES: THE SAVIOR OR DEATH SENTENCE OF THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM?
...32, at 17. [77] See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (excluding military dependents from courts-martial jurisdiction); Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278 (1960) (excluding civilian employees of the various services within the Department of Defense from the jurisdiction of [78] MJRG Report, sup......
-
INCIDENT TO SERVICE: THE FERES DOCTRINE AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.
...354 U.S. at 65 (Harlan, J., concurring). [223] Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960). [224] Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278 [225] McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960). [226] Cf. Reid, 354 U.S. at 34 n.61 (plurality opinion) ("We believe ......
-
The Case of the Murdering Wives: Reid v. Covert and the Complicated Question of Civilians and Courts-Martial
...II . United States ex rel. Kinsella v. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 243–44 (1960) (civilian dependent, non-capital offense); Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278, 280 (1960) (civilian employee, capital offense); McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281, 283–84 (civilian employees, no......
-
Five questions about the military justice system.
...the holding in Grisham to prohibit court-martial jurisdiction over civilian employees committing noncapital offenses); Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278 (1960) (finding civilian employees committing capital offenses not subject to military jurisdiction); Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singl......