Brown v. Hiatt

Decision Date17 November 1948
Docket NumberNo. 2320.,2320.
PartiesBROWN v. HIATT, Warden.
CourtU.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.

UNDERWOOD, District Judge.

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 authority appointing a general court-martial shall detail as one of the members thereof a law member, who shall be an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department, except that when an officer of that department is not available for the purpose the appointing authority shall detail instead an officer of some other branch of the service selected by the appointing authority as specially qualified to perform the duties of law member. The law member, in addition to his duties as a member, shall perform such other duties as the President may by regulations prescribe."

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.

"Undoubtedly courts-martial are tribunals of special and limited jurisdiction whose judgments, so far as questions relating to their jurisdiction are concerned, are always open to collateral attack. True, also, is it that in consequence of the limited nature of the power of such courts the right to have exerted their jurisdiction, when called in question by collateral attack, will be held not to have existed unless it appears that the grounds which were necessary to justify the exertion of the assailed authority existed at the time of its exertion and therefore were or should have been a part of the record." Givens v. Zerbst, 253 U.S. 11, 19, 41 S.Ct. 227, 229, 65 L.Ed. 475.

"To give effect to its sentences, it must appear affirmatively and unequivocally that the court was legally constituted; that it had jurisdiction; that all the statutory regulations governing its proceedings had been complied with; and that its sentence was conformable to law. Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65, 80 15 L.Ed. 838; Mills v. Martin, 19 Johns. N.Y. 7, 33. There are no presumptions in its favor so far as these matters are concerned. As to them, the rule announced by Chief Justice Marshall in Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115 8 L.Ed. 885, in respect to averments...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dodson v. Zelez, 88-2875
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 23 Octubre 1990
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 13 Marzo 1950
  • Sinclair v. Hiatt, 2436.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • 1 Noviembre 1949
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • 16 Julio 1949
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT