Brown v. Hiatt
Decision Date | 17 November 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 2320.,2320. |
Parties | BROWN v. HIATT, Warden. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Walter G. Cooper, of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
J. Ellis Mundy, U. S. Atty., and Harvey H. Tisinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., and Eugene M. Caffey, Col. Jagd, and H. M. Peyton, Lt.Col. Jagd, both of Fort McPherson, Ga., for respondent.
On January 14, 1947, petitioner was, after trial and conviction, sentenced by a General Court-Martial sitting at Mannheim, Germany, to life imprisonment upon the charge of murder.
The finding of guilty was by a two-thirds vote of the members present and the sentence was imposed by a vote of three-fourths of the members of the Court present at the time the vote was taken. The findings and sentence were duly approved by the Board of Review and the sentence was later reduced to a term of twenty years.
Petitioner alleges as grounds for writ of habeas corpus that the Court-Martial was without jurisdiction and its sentence void because the Court was not legally constituted; that the sentence of the Court was invalid because based upon finding of guilty by only two-thirds instead of three-fourths of the members of the Court, and because the pretrial investigation was not thorough and impartial as required by the 70th Article of War, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1542; that petitioner was not afforded effective assistance of counsel; that the only pretrial investigation made was that under the charge of manslaughter and not of murder; and that the only investigation made by the duly appointed investigator was not based upon his own investigation but upon statements previously procured by others.
The first ground raises the crucial question in this case. It is contended that the Court was not legally constituted because the law member thereof was not an officer of the Judge Advocate General's office as required by the 8th Article of War, 10 U. S.C.A. § 1479.
This Article contains the following provision:
The record shows that the member of the court designated as law member was not an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department. The order establishing the Court-Martial shows on its face that Captain Jack H. Chalkley, who was detailed as Assistant Trial Judge Advocate, was an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department.
A court-martial is purely a creature of the statute and has only such powers as delegated to it by the statute. There is no presumption of jurisdiction in its favor, and unless constituted as provided by law, is not a legal court and has no jurisdiction to try offenders brought before it.
Restrictions on the jurisdiction of courts-martial have been repeatedly emphasized by the United States Supreme Court, as will be seen from the following quotations:
"But, the court-martial being a special statutory tribunal, with limited powers, its judgment is open to collateral attack, and unless facts essential to sustain its jurisdiction appear, it must be held not to exist." Collins v. McDonald, 258 U.S. 416, 418, 42 S.Ct. 326, 327, 66 L.Ed. 692.
Givens v. Zerbst, 253 U.S. 11, 19, 41 S.Ct. 227, 229, 65 L.Ed. 475.
. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dodson v. Zelez, 88-2875
...requirement for sentencing in cases carrying a mandatory sentence. Two district court cases support our prior holdings. In Brown v. Hiatt, 81 F.Supp. 647 (N.D.Ga.1948), the court noted in [W]hile the death penalty might have been imposed, it was not mandatory and ... therefore the vote of "......
- Hiatt v. Brown 8212 1950
-
Sinclair v. Hiatt, 2436.
...1073; Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 27, 59 S.Ct. 442. In Hiatt v. Brown, 175 F.2d 273, affirming judgment of this Court, Brown v. Hiatt, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 647, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit say, 175 F.2d at page 276: "* * * the inherent prerogative of a federal court to inquir......
-
Fugate v. Hiatt
...the Judge Advocate General's Department on the ground that none was available. In Hiatt v. Brown, 175 F.2d 273, 276, affirming Brown v. Hiatt, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 647, which is controlling in this case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit say: "It is without dispute that such law member......