ex parte Edmead
| Decision Date | 11 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 3886.,3886. |
| Citation | 27 F.2d 438 |
| Parties | Ex parte EDMEAD. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
John T. Lane, of Wayland, Mass., for petitioner.
John W. Schenck, of Boston, Mass., for respondent.
Habeas corpus to the Commissioner of Immigration to obtain the release of Phyllis Edmead, held for deportation on warrant proceedings.
Edmead entered the United States via Canada in April, 1924, coming from Montserrat, B. W. I. The deportation warrant against her was issued on November 22, 1927, upon the ground that she had within five years after her admittance to this country been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more. The case was submitted upon the record of the proceedings before the immigration tribunals; and the question is whether upon the facts found the order was justified as a matter of law.
Edmead is a young colored woman, born in 1904, or perhaps 1908 — it is stated both ways. She worked as a domestic servant. In April, 1926, she was convicted of petty larceny and sentenced to three months in the House of Correction. Later in the same month she was arrested in deportation proceedings upon the ground that she was likely to become a public charge at the time of her entry in 1924. After hearings, that warrant was canceled by the Assistant Secretary. In June, 1926, she gave birth to an illegitimate child. In April, 1927, she was again arrested for larceny and sentenced to one year in jail.
There is no evidence about these larcenies except that given by the alien. She says that on the first occasion she had taken to her own room some of her employer's clothing with the intention of stealing it, but was detected before carrying it away, and that it was the first time she had ever been arrested. Her baby was born during her imprisonment on the sentence for this crime. She testified that she had never had sexual relations except with the man who was the father of her child, that he promised to marry her, and that she believed he would do so if informed of her condition. As to the second larceny, she says that the complaining witness kept some of her baby's clothes, and that she (Edmead) took 95 cents "while she was looking at me," promising to repay it on getting work; that she never was arrested except for these two crimes.
The only ground of deportation now relied on is that Edmead has been convicted of a "crime involving moral turpitude." That the expression connotes something more than "illegal" or "criminal" is clear — law and morality are by no means identical. The best definition which I have found is Judge Walker's in Coykendall v. Skrmetta (C. C. A.) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kister Oil Development Corporation v. Young
-
Marciano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...or might not. As to this last class the circumstances must be regarded to determine whether moral turpitude was shown." Ex parte Edmead, 27 F.2d 438, 439 (D.Mass.1928) (citation Perhaps the Pino v. Nicolls analysis ("it is possible to conceive of circumstances under which almost any crime m......
-
Tutrone v. Shaughnessy
...and enlightened dissents from this view where the offense was a trifling one and there were mitigating circumstances, e. g., Ex parte Edmead, D.C. Mass., 27 F.2d 438, reversed Tillinghast v. Edmead, 1 Cir., 31 F.2d 81; Anderson, C. J. dissenting in Tillinghast v. Edmead, supra, 31 F.2d Be t......