Glenn v. Hodges
Decision Date | 14 May 1948 |
Citation | 79 F. Supp. 400 |
Parties | GLENN v. HODGES, Commanding General First Army, Fort Jay, N. Y. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Writ discharged and petitioner remanded to custody of respondent.
Andrew J. McLean, of New York City, for petitioner.
John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., of New York City (John F. Ryan, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), and Bertram Schwartz, Office of First Army Judge Advocate, of New York City (Colonel John A. Hall, J. A. G. D., First Army Judge Advocate, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding by which petitioner, a warrant officer, seeks his release from imprisonment by the Army of the United States.
The petitioner, now a general prisoner of the Army, was tried before a General Court Martial convened at Leghorn, Italy, on August 22, 1947.
The petitioner was charged with a confederate with a violation of the 94th Article of War, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1566, in that he and his confederate applied to their own use some 80 bales of flannel shirts and one motor vehicle, both of which were property of the United States and furnished and intended for the military service.
The petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to be dismissed from the service and to be confined at hard labor for five years and in addition to forfeit all pay and allowance and pay a $5,000 fine. The petitioner appealed to the Army reviewing authorities and his conviction and sentence were affirmed.
This court's power to review the action of a military tribunal is limited to (1) Was the military court properly constituted; (2) did the court have jurisdiction over the person; (3) did it have jurisdiction to try the offense; (4) did it pronounce a sentence which it was authorized to pronounce? United States ex rel. Campo v. Swenson, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 543, affirmed on opinion below 2 Cir., 165 F.2d 213.
The petitioner's initial contention seems to be that the court was not properly constituted. This contention is based upon two assertions, namely — that the provisions of Article of War 70, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1542, were not complied with, in that no "thorough and impartial investigation" was made, and secondly, in that the law member of the court was not a member of the Judge Advocate General's Department, although members of the Judge Advocate General's Department were available, Article 8 of War, 10 U.S.C. A. § 1479.
This latter contention may be readily disposed of, for whether or not the Judge Advocate General's Department has officers available rests in the sound discretion of the officer who appoints the Court Martial and the provisions of Article of War 8 are merely directory and not mandatory. Henry v. Hodges, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 76 F.Supp. 968, Ryan, J.; Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 25 U.S. 19, 6 L.Ed. 537.
The pertinent provisions of Article of War 70 provides:
The petitioner asserts that a "thorough and impartial investigation" was not made in petitioner's case because the record shows that the investigating officer relied solely upon the report of the agents of the Criminal Investigation Division C.I.D. which was made prior to the investigating officer's appointment.
Before proceeding to dispose of this contention on its merits, it may be well to point out that the petitioner did not either on his trial or on his appeals, urge this contention as error. It was first raised upon the argument of the writ now before the court.
The Manual for Courts Martial, United States Army, 1928, as corrected up to April 20, 1943, Chapter VII, Section 35, pages 24 and 25, provides in part as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adams v. Hiatt
...States ex rel. Gash v. Nierstheimer, D.C.Ill., 74 F. Supp. 992, 995. 8 Morton v. Welch, 4 Cir., 162 F.2d 840. 9 Glenn v. Hodges, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 79 F.Supp. 400 (May 14, 1948); see also as to the effect of errors committed prior to trial, Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125......
- Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Slide Rule & Scale Eng. Co.
-
Richardson v. Zuppann
...1 Order of Arrest, Defense Exhibit C, Court-Martial Record page 487. 2 Hironimus v. Durant, 4 Cir., 168 F. 2d 288. 3 Glenn v. Hodges, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 79 F. Supp. 400, 401. 4 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (Record of Trial by General Court-Martial) at pages 13b, 15, and 16. 4½ Becker v. Webster, 2......
-
Ex parte Mulvaney
...or not the court-martial had jurisdiction of the crime charged. In re Wrublewski, D.C.D.Cal.1947, 71 F.Supp. 143; and Glenn v. Hodges, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1948, 79 F.Supp. 400. Had this offense occurred upon a Naval reservation over which the United States had exclusive jurisdiction, upon a Naval v......