In re Medley

Citation134 U.S. 160,10 S.Ct. 384,33 L.Ed. 835
PartiesIn re MEDLEY
Decision Date03 March 1890
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

A. T. Britton, Henry Wise Garnett, and W. V. R. Berry, for petitioner.

H. M. Teller, for respondents.

MILLER, J.

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he was sentenced under the statute of Colorado approved April 19, 1889, and which went into effect July 19, 1889, and repealed all acts and parts of former acts inconsistent therewith, without any saving clause, and that the crime on account of which the sentence was passed was charged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: 'An act relative to the time, place, and manner of infliction of the death penalty, and to provide means for the infliction of such penalty; and making it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment, to disclose or publish proceedings in relation thereto. Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Colorado: Section 1. The commissioners of the state penitentiary, at the expense of the state of Colorado, shall provide a suitable room or place inclosed from public view within the walls of the penitentiary, and therein erect and construct, and at all times have in preparation, all necessary scaffolding, drops, and appliances requisite for carrying into execution the death penalty; and the punishment of death must, in each and every case of death sentence pronounced in this state, be inflicted by the warden of the said state penitentiary in the room or place and with the appliances provided as aforesaid, by hanging such convict by the neck until he shall be dead. Sec. 2. Whenever a person convicted of a crime, the punishment whereof is death, and such convicted person be sentenced to suffer the penalty of death, the judge passing such sentence shall appoint and designate in the warrant of conviction a week of time within which such sentence must be executed. Such week, so appointed, shall be not less than two nor more than four weeks from the day of passing such sentence. Said warrant shall be directed to the warden of the state penitentiary of this state, commanding said warden to do execution of the sentence imposed as aforesaid, upon some day within the week of time designated in said warrant, and shall be delivered to the sheriff of the county wherein such conviction is had, who shall within twenty-four hours thereafter after proceed to the said penitentiary and deliver such convicted person, together with the warrant as aforesaid, to the said warden, who shall keep such convict in solitary confinement until infliction of the death penalty; and no person shall be allowed access to said convict, except his attendants, counsel, physician, a spiritual adviser of his own selection, and members of his family, and then only in accordance with prison regulations. Sec. 3. The particular day and hour of the execution of said sentence, within the week specified in said warrant, shall be fixed by said warden, and he shall invite to be present thereat the sheriff of the county wherein the conviction was had, the chaplain and physician of the penitentiary, one practicing surgeon resident in the state, the spiritual adviser of the convict, if any, and six reputable citizens of the state of full age. Said warden may also appoint three deputies or guards to assist him in executing said sentence, and said warden shall permit no person or persons to be present at such execution except those provided for in this section. The time fixed by said warden for said execution shall be by him kept secret, and in no manner divulged, except privately, to the persons by him invited to be present as aforesaid; and such persons so invited shall not divulge such invitation to any person or persons whomsoever, nor in any manner disclose the time of such execution. All persons present at such execution shall keep whatever may transpire thereat secret and inviolate, save and except the facts certified to by them as hereinafter provided. No account of the details of any such execution, beyond the statement of the fact that such convict was on the day in question duly executed according to law at the state penitentiary, shall in any manner be published in this state. Sec. 4. Upon receiving notice from said warden of such execution, it shall be the duty of said sheriff to be present and witness such execution; and shall receive and cause the certified transcript of record of said execution, hereinafter specified, to be filed within ten days after said execution in the office of the clerk of the court in which said conviction was had and the said clerk shall record said transcript at length in the records of the said case. In case of the disability, from illness or other sufficient cause, of said warden or said sheriff to be present at such execution, it shall be the duty of their respective deputies, acting in their place and stead, to execute said warrant, and to perform all other duties in connection therewith and by this act imposed upon their principals. Sec. 5. Said warden shall keep a book of record, to be known as 'Record of Executions,' in which shall be entered at length the reports hereinafter specified. Immediately after said execution a post moitem examination of the body of the convict shall be made by the attending physician and surgeon, and they shall enter in said book of record the nature and extent of such examination, and sign and certify to the same. Said warden shall also immediately make and enter in said book a report setting forth the time of such execution, and that the convict (naming him) was then and there executed in conformity to the sentence specified in the warrant of the court (naming such court) to him directed, and in accordance with the provisions of this act; and shall insert in said report the names of all the persons who were present and witnessed said execution, and shall procure each and every of such persons to sign said report with their full name and place of residence before leaving the place of execution; and said warden shall thereupon attach his certificate to said report, certifying to the truth and correctness thereof, and shall immediately deliver a certified transcript of said record entry to said sheriff. Sec. 6. Any person who shall violate or omit to comply with section 3 of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof be punished by a fine of not less than $50, nor more than $500, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than thirty days, nor more than six months. Sec. 7. The warden, or other person acting in his stead, who performs the duties imposed upon him by this act, shall be paid for his services out of the moneys provided for the maintenance of said state penitentiary the sum of fifty (50) dollars; and the said sheriff shall be paid for his services by the county where...

To continue reading

Request your trial
321 cases
  • Owino v. Corecivic, Inc., Case No.: 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 14 mai 2018
    ......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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • 2 novembre 2018
    ......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)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 17 septembre 2018
    ...... 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
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 10 février 1911
    ...... 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, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
7 books & journal articles
  • 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).
    • United States
    • Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy Vol. 27 No. 1, January 2022
    • 1 janvier 2022
    ...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
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice and Behavior No. 35-8, August 2008
    • 1 août 2008
    ...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.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 47 No. 4, September 2010
    • 22 septembre 2010
    ...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
    • United States
    • International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology No. 52-6, December 2008
    • 1 décembre 2008
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Federal Custody; Remedies On Motion Attacking Sentence
    • United States
    • US Code 2019 Edition Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Part VI. Particular Proceedings Chapter 153. Habeas Corpus
    • 1 janvier 2019
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT