Burns v. Lovett

• Decision Date: 31 July 1952
• Docket Number: No. 3871.,3871.
• Citation: 104 F. Supp. 312
• Parties: BURNS v. LOVETT, Secretary of Defense et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

104 F. Supp. 312

BURNS v. LOVETT, Secretary of Defense et al.

No. 3871.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

April 10, 1952.

Judgment Affirmed July 31, 1952.

Frank D. Reeves, Washington, D. C., Thurgood Marshall and Robert L. Carter, New York City, for petitioner.

Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., B. M. Landesman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., Walter Kiechel, Jr., Lt. Col., United States Air Force, Office of The Judge Advocate General, United States Air Force, Washington, D. C., for respondents.

MORRIS, District Judge.

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed, seeking the release of the petitioner, who is held under authority of the respondents by the Japan Logistical Command, awaiting execution of sentence of death pursuant to a conviction by a general court martial for the rape and murder of one Ruth Farnsworth, in violation of the 92nd Article of War, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1564, in Guam, on or about the 11th day of December 1948. The petitioner at the times relevant to these proceedings was a Staff Sergeant of the 12th Air Ammunition Squadron. The general court martial, before which he was tried, was lawfully appointed by the Commanding General, 20th Air Force. It is, therefore, not controverted that the general court martial trying this petitioner had jurisdiction of the petitioner and of the offense, and it is clear that the sentence imposed was such as is authorized by the Articles of War. It is contended by the petitioner, however, that gross irregularities and improper and unlawful practices rendered the trial and conviction invalid, and that this Court, on a writ of habeas corpus, should review the proceedings, determine the invalidity thereof, and release the petitioner from custody.

As stated in the memorandum opinion in the case of Dennis v. Lovett, D. C., 104 F.Supp. 310, the conclusions of this Court are:

"It is for this Court, on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, only to inquire into and determine whether or not the court martial before which a petitioner is tried was lawfully constituted, had jurisdiction of the person and offense, and imposed a sentence authorized by law. Beyond that the civil courts should not and cannot go. The Congress has constituted the system by which military law shall be administered, and it is not given to the civil courts, beyond the jurisdiction of a military court, to inquire into the regularity of its proceedings for the correction of errors committed therein. Hiatt v.

...