In the Matter of George Moran, Petitioner. riginal
| Decision Date | 05 November 1906 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 8,8 |
| Citation | 27 S.Ct. 25,203 U.S. 96,51 L.Ed. 105 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE MORAN, Petitioner. riginal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Finis E. Riddle and William I. Cruce for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 97-101 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Don C. Smith and W. O. Cromwell for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 101 intentionally omitted] 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 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 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 States. If it did prescribe a different one, a departure from that was a violation of the territorial enactment alone. The acts of the legislature of Oklahoma are not laws of the United States within the meaning of Rev. Stat. § 753, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 592. If any laws have been violated it is the latter one. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to release on this ground under Rev. Stat. § 753. The 5th Amendment, requiring the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, does not take up unto itself the local law as to how the grand jury should be made up, and raise the latter to a constitutional requirement. See Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U. S. 638, 50 L. ed. 899, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560. It is unnecessary to consider whether the judge went beyond his powers under the circumstances. See Clawson v. United States, 114 U. S. 477, 29 L. ed. 179, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 949. But it is proper to add that while the reason which we have given is logically the first to be considered by this court, we do not mean to give any countenance to the notion that, if the law was disobeyed, it affected the jurisdiction of the court. Ex parte Harding, 120 U. S. 782, 30 L. ed. 824, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780; Re Wilson, 140 U. S. 575, 35 L. ed. 513, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 870.
The third ground on which the jurisdiction of the trial court is denied is that, on August 4, 1901, the date of the commission of the crime, the place was within territory not embraced in any organized county, and was attached for judicial purposes to Canadian county. By the Oklahoma organic act, May 2, 1890, chap. 182, § 9 (26 Stat. at L. 85, 86), this is provided for, and by § 10 such offenses shall be tried in the county to which the territory 'shall be attached.' It is argued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Brough
...In re Wood, 140 U.S. 278 11 S.Ct. 738, 35 L.Ed. 505; In re Wilson, 140 U.S. 575 11 S.Ct. 870, 35 L.Ed. 513; See Matter of Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 104 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105, 108. The indictment, though voidable, if the objection is seasonably taken, as it was in this case, is not void. Unite......
-
Hallock v. United States
... ... ' No provision appearing in the law the ... matter of witnesses to make the proof would properly be the ... As was ... said in Matter of Moran, 203 U.S. 97, 27 Sup.Ct. 26 ... (51 L.Ed. 105): ... Thus in the case of Medley, ... Petitioner, 134 U.S. 160, 171, 10 Sup.Ct. 384, 33 L.Ed. 835, ... the ... ...
-
Yamashita Yamashita v. Styer
...183 U.S. 365, 22 S.Ct. 181, 46 L.Ed. 236; Collins v. McDonald, 258 U.S. 416, 42 S.Ct. 326, 66 L.Ed. 692. Cf. Matter of Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 105, 27 S.Ct. 25, 26, 51 L.Ed. 105. Finally, we held in Ex parte Quirin, supra, 317 U.S. 24, 25, 63 S.Ct. 9, 10, 87 L.Ed. 3, as we hold now, that Congre......
-
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 8212 732
... ... Superintendent, California Conservation Center, Petitioner, ... Robert Clyde BUSTAMONTE ... No. 71—732 ... For, no matter how subtly the coercion was applied, the resulting ... 422 (1895); In re ... Page 256 ... Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 27 S.Ct. 25, 51 L.Ed. 105 (1906), to whether ... ...
-
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
...of those decisions would render them consistent with later Supreme Court decisions involving similar issues. See, e.g., In re Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 103-05 (1906) (considering several jurisdictional challenges to the trial court's authority but refusing to consider a Fifth Amendment Self-Incri......