In the Matter of George Moran, Petitioner. riginal, No. 8
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 27 S.Ct. 25,203 U.S. 96,51 L.Ed. 105 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE MORAN, Petitioner. riginal |
| Docket Number | O,No. 8 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1906 |
Page 97
Messrs. Finis E. Riddle and William I. Cruce for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 97-101 intentionally omitted]
Page 101
Messrs. Don C. Smith and W. O. Cromwell for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 101 intentionally omitted]
Page 102
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of certiorari, brought by a person imprisoned on a conviction for murder, alleging that the judgment under which he is held is void. A rule to show cause was issued and the case
Page 103
was heard on the petition and answer. The various grounds upon which the petition is supported are alleged to go to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Ex parte Harding, 120 U. S. 782, 30 L. ed. 824, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780. See New v. Oklahoma, 195 U. S. 252, 49 L. ed. 182, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 68. A writ of habeas corpus for the same causes was heard by the circuit court of appeals and discharged. Ex parte Moran, 144 Fed. 594. The judgment also was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory in which the petitioner was tried. 14 Okla. 544, 78 Pac. 111.
The petitioner was tried in the district court for Comanche county in the territory of Oklahoma. The first ground now relied upon is that the court was not duly organized under the act of Congress requiring the supreme court to define the judicial districts, and to fix the times and places at each county seat where the district court shall be held. The order of the supreme court went no further in the way of fixing the place than to specify Lawton for the county of Comanche. This order was made on January 15, 1902, about six months after the land, which had been Indian territory, was opened for settlement and the county created. At that time and at the time of the trial there were no county or court buildings in the county. The order of the supreme court was as precise as the circumstances permitted it to be, and the failure to specify a building did not go to the jurisdiction of the trial court. There is no pretense that the petitioner lost any opportunities by reason of no building being named.
The next ground argued is that the laws of the territory were not followed in the selection of the grand jury, because the persons selected were not elecors of the territory, and some of them were nonresidents, with other subordinate matters. The order for the summons stated the reason, which was that there had been no election held in the county, and there were no names of jurors in the jury box; whereupon the presiding judge ordered the sheriff to summon twenty persons from the body of the county. We have heard no answer to the material portion of the reasoning of the circuit court of appeals
Page 104
upon this point. If the legislature of Oklahoma had prescribed the method of selection followed, that method would not have violated the Constitution or any law or treaty of the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunal v. Large Alexander v. United States Kulick, Nos. 535
...v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 12 S.Ct. 195, 35 L.Ed. 1110 and Ex parte Irvine, C.C., 74 F. 954 (Taft, Circuit Judge), with Matter of Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105; (c) no indictment by Page 186 grand jury. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 5 S.Ct. 935, 29 L.Ed. 89. Also Ex parte ......
-
Fay v. Noia, No. 84
...23 L.Ed. 787; Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328, 5 S.Ct. 542, 28 L.Ed. 1005; In re Belt, 159 U.S. 95, 15 S.Ct. 987, 40 L.Ed. 88; In re Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105; Knewel v. Egan, 268 U.S. 442, 45 S.Ct. 522, 69 L.Ed. 1036. Although the remedy extends to federal prisoners held......
-
People v. Floyd F. (In re N.G.), Docket Nos. 121939
..., 113 U.S. 328, 5 S.Ct. 542, 28 L.Ed. 1005 (1885) ), or that an individual had been compelled to incriminate himself ( In re Moran , 203 U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105 (1906) ), the Court has consistently and without exception recognized an obligation to afford relief to a person convic......
-
Calley v. Callaway, No. 74-3471
...268 U.S. at 447, 45 S.Ct. at 524-525. See also Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U.S. 442, 31 S.Ct. 44, 54 L.Ed. 1101 (1910); In re Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105 (1906); Dimmick v. Tompkins, 194 U.S. 540, 24 S.Ct. 780, 48 L.Ed. 1110 (1904); Storti v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 138, 22 S.......
-
Sunal v. Large Alexander v. United States Kulick, Nos. 535
...v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 12 S.Ct. 195, 35 L.Ed. 1110 and Ex parte Irvine, C.C., 74 F. 954 (Taft, Circuit Judge), with Matter of Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105; (c) no indictment by Page 186 grand jury. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 5 S.Ct. 935, 29 L.Ed. 89. Also Ex parte ......
-
Fay v. Noia, No. 84
...23 L.Ed. 787; Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328, 5 S.Ct. 542, 28 L.Ed. 1005; In re Belt, 159 U.S. 95, 15 S.Ct. 987, 40 L.Ed. 88; In re Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105; Knewel v. Egan, 268 U.S. 442, 45 S.Ct. 522, 69 L.Ed. 1036. Although the remedy extends to federal prisoners held......
-
People v. Floyd F. (In re N.G.), Docket Nos. 121939
..., 113 U.S. 328, 5 S.Ct. 542, 28 L.Ed. 1005 (1885) ), or that an individual had been compelled to incriminate himself ( In re Moran , 203 U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105 (1906) ), the Court has consistently and without exception recognized an obligation to afford relief to a person convic......
-
Calley v. Callaway, No. 74-3471
...268 U.S. at 447, 45 S.Ct. at 524-525. See also Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U.S. 442, 31 S.Ct. 44, 54 L.Ed. 1101 (1910); In re Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105 (1906); Dimmick v. Tompkins, 194 U.S. 540, 24 S.Ct. 780, 48 L.Ed. 1110 (1904); Storti v. Massachusetts, 183 U.S. 138, 22 S.......