In re Medley
Citation | 134 U.S. 160,10 S.Ct. 384,33 L.Ed. 835 |
Parties | In re MEDLEY |
Decision Date | 03 March 1890 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A. T. Britton, Henry Wise Garnett, and W. V. R. Berry, for petitioner.
H. M. Teller, for respondents.
This is an application to this court by James J. Medley for a writ of habeas corpus, the object of which is to relieve him from the imprisonment in which he is held by J. A. Lamping, warden of the state penitentiary of the state of Colorado. The petitioner is held a prisoner under sentence of death pronounced by the district court of the second district of the state of Colorado for the county of Arapahoe. The petition of the prisoner sets forth that an indictment for the murder of Ellen Medley, was found against him by the grand jury of Arapahoe county on the 5th day of June, 1889; that the indictment charges petitioner with this murder, which took place on the 13th day of May of that year; that he was tried in said district court on the 24th day of September thereafter, and found guilty by the jury of murder in the first degree; that on the 29th day of November he was sentenced to be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Arapahoe county, and within 24 hours to be taken by said sheriff and delivered to the warden of the state penitentiary to be kept in solitary confinement until the fourth week of the month of December thereafter, and that then, upon a day and hour to be designated by the warden, he should be taken from said place of confinement to the place of execution, within the confines of the penitentiary, and there hanged be by the neck until he was dead. Copies of the indictment, of the verdict of the jury, and of the sentence of the court are annexed to the petition as exhibits. The petitioner then sets forth that he was sentenced under the statute of Colorado approved April 19, 1889, and which went into effect July 19, 1889, and repealed all acts and parts of former acts inconsistent therewith, without any saving clause, and that the crime on account of which the sentence was passed was charged to be and was actually committed on the 13th day of May of the same year. The petitioner enumerates some 20 variances between the statute in force at the time the crime was committed and that under which he was sentenced to punishment in the present case, all of which are claimed to be changes to his prejudice and injury, and therefore ex post facto, within the meaning of section 10, art. 1, of the copstitution of the United States, which declares that no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law. The petitioner applies directly to this court for the writ of habeas corpus, instead of to the circuit court of the United States; because he alleges that court has in a similar case, involving the same points, decided adversely to the petitioner. Upon examining the petition and the accompanying exbibits, an order was made that the writ should issue and be returnable forthwith. By an arrangement between the parties and the counsel, it was agreed that the prisoner need not, in person, be brought to Washington. The case was therefore heard on the documents and transcripts of record presented to the court, and the only question argued before us was whether the act of April 19, 1889, which by the constitution of the state of Colorado became operative on the 19th day of July thereafter and under which the sentence complained of was im- posed by the district court, is an ex post facto law, so as to be void under the provision of the constitution of the United States on that subject, and, if so, in what respect it is in violation of that constitutional provision.
This statute will be found in the Session Laws of the stat of Colorado of 1889, p. 118, and is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Owino v. Corecivic, Inc., Case No.: 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)
......Plaintiffs argue that solitary confinement has long been recognized as an additional punishment above and beyond day-to-day incarceration. (Opp'n 21 (citing, e.g., In re Medley , 134 U.S. 160 (1890)).) The Court finds this authority persuasive. It has long been recognized that "solitary confinement bears 'a further terror and peculiar mark of infamy.'" Davis v . Ayala , 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2209 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (quoting Medley , 134 U.S. at 170). At the ......
-
Gordon v. Maesaka-Hirata, SCWC-14-0000914
......25 We emphasize that Gordon’s maximum security conditions were harsh—solitary confinement has long been recognized as an "infamous punishment" used to "mark [prisoners] as examples of the just punishment of the worst crimes of the human race." In re Medley , 134 U.S. 160, 168-170, 10 S.Ct. 384, 33 L.Ed. 835 (1890). This point has been effectively summarized by other courts. See, e.g. , Davis v. Ayala , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 2209-11, 192 L.Ed.2d 323 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (summarizing the history and effects of ......
-
Jurado v. Davis, Case No.: 08cv1400 JLS (JMA)
...... that stating that 'when a prisoner sentenced by a court to death is confined in the penitentiary awaiting the execution of the sentence, one of the most horrible feelings to which he can be subjected during that time is the uncertainty during the whole of it.'" (SAP at 504, quoting In re Medley , 134 U.S. 160, 172 (1890).) Petitioner contends that: "In Medley , the period of uncertainty was just four weeks. As recognized by Justice Stevens, Medley's description should apply with even greater force in a case such as this, involving a delay that has lasted over thirteen years." (SAP at ......
-
Hallock v. United States
...... within the meaning of section 10, art. 1, of the Constitution. and violative thereof. United States v. Hall, 2 Wash. (C.C.) 366, Fed. Cas. No. 15,285, pp. 84, 86, 6 Cranch,. 171, 3 L.Ed. 189; Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221,. 235, 2 Sup.Ct. 443, 27 L.Ed. 506; In re Medley, 134. U.S. 160, 171, 10 Sup.Ct. 384, 33 L.Ed. 835; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382, 14 Sup.Ct. 570, 38 L.Ed. 485; Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 351, 18 Sup.Ct. 620, 42 L.Ed. 1061; United States v. Haskell (D.C.) . 169 F. 449, 454; United States v. London (D.C.) 176. F. 976, ......
-
Justice Breyer pens solo cert denial statement to again express concern with long death row stays
...under threat of execution for just four weeks is “one of the most horrible feelings to which [a person] can be subjected.” In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 172 (1890). On top of that, “[y]ears on end of near-total isolation exact a terrible price.” Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 289 (2015) (Kenne......
-
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL FOR ALL, UNLESS YOU'RE INCARCERATED: HOW SIXTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE ALLOWS FOR PROLONGED ISOLATION - UNITED STATES V. BAILEY-SNYDER, 923 F.3D 289, 291 (3RD CIR. 2019).
...and often significantly impaired the inmate's capacity to adapt successfully to the broader prison environment.") (56) In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 168 (1890) (describing psychological impact of prolonged (57) See Laura Sullivan, Timeline: Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons, Nat'L Pub. Rad......
-
Penal Isolation
...of the worst” exclusively or even importantlyremains a somewhat open question. In my view, it did not and will not. 103. In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1890).104. Id. at 174.105. Id. at 168-169. I suspect that if the Supreme Court directly faces a condition of in isolation claim, Medley will b......
-
Regulating segregation: the contribution of the ABA criminal justice standards on the treatment of prisoners.
...at http://www.nicic.org/pubs/1999/014937.pdf. (31.) Id. (32.) Id. (33.) 545 U.S. 209 (2005). (34.) Id. at 214. (35.) In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 168 (1890); see also Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 237-38 (1940) (referring to "solitary confinement" as one of the techniques of "physical a......
-
The Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prisoners in Supermax Units
...Super-maximum security confinement in the United States.Retrieved December 2, 2007, from www.hrw.org/reports/2000/supermax/In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1890).Jackson, M. (2001). The psychological effects of administrative segregation. Canadian Journal ofCriminology, 43(1), 109-116.Jones ’El ......
-
28 U.S.C. § 2255 Federal Custody; Remedies On Motion Attacking Sentence
...position in habeas corpus to do justice as would be so if the matter were determined in the criminal proceeding (see Medley, petitioner, 134 U.S. 160, 174 (1890)). For instance, the judge (by habeas corpus) cannot grant a new trial in the criminal case. Since the motion remedy is in the cri......