Henderson v. Cronvich
| Decision Date | 04 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 25605.,25605. |
| Citation | 402 F.2d 763 |
| Parties | George J. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. Alwynn CRONVICH, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Samuel S. Dalton, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
James K. Gaudet, Gretna, La., William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for appellee.
Before COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.
Under Louisiana law a defendant may be prosecuted by information for an offense less than capital.1 In capital cases an indictment is prerequisite.
The appellant, in state custody under an information for an offense less than capital, unsuccessfully sought relief by habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. He contended there, and he argues here, that the provision of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which prohibits prosecution for infamous crimes except on the indictment of a Grand Jury applies to the states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; therefore his detention upon a bill of information rather than an indictment violates his federal constitutional rights.
In Hurtado v. People of State of California,2 and again in Gaines v. State of Washington,3 the Supreme Court has held that the indictment clause of the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states. In the absence of some clear indication that the Supreme Court would no longer follow these precedents we are, of course, bound to follow them. As recently as 1964 the Tenth Circuit in Blakesley v. Crouse,4 and as recently as 1965 the Sixth Circuit in Saunders v. Buckhoe,5 followed the rule announced in Hurtado and Gaines.
We therefore hold that the Louisiana procedure is not constitutionally invalid and we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bukowski
...Cf. Morford v. Hocker, 394 F.2d 169 (9th Cir. 1968), certiorari denied, 392 U.S. 944, 88 S.Ct. 2329, 20 L.Ed.2d 1406; Henderson v. Cronvich, 402 F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1968). The extension of constitutional right to jury trial in serious contempts does not, moreover, indicate a rejection of the......
-
U.S. v. 320.0 Acres of Land, More or Less in Monroe County, State of Fla.
...the SOP issue, "merely decide(s) a legal question which limit(s) the factors necessary to the determination of 'just compensation.' " 402 F.2d at 763. The Supreme Court further elaborated upon this in (W)e think the Rule's basic structure makes clear that a jury in federal condemnation proc......
-
Haffke v. State of California
...F.2d 205, 207 (8th Cir. 1969) (Iowa). See also Kelly v. Peyton, 420 F.2d 912, 914 (4th Cir. 1969) (Virginia); Henderson v. Cronvich, 402 F. 2d 763, 764 (5th Cir. 1968) (Louisiana); Martin v. Beto, 397 F.2d 741, 746 (5th Cir. 1968) From this legion of authority, respondent argues and we acce......
-
Guice v. Fortenberry
...the case). See L.S.A.-Const. art. 1, Sec. 15; L.S.A.-C.Cr.P. art. 382; State v. Qualls, 353 So.2d 978 (La.1977); Henderson v. Cronvich, 402 F.2d 763 (5th Cir.1968). And, of course, the United States Constitution not only does not require that state prosecutions be on grand jury indictment, ......