Martin v. Texas Clelland v. Texas Clelland v. Texas, No. 149
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | DOUGLAS |
| Citation | 382 U.S. 928,15 L.Ed.2d 340,86 S.Ct. 307 |
| Parties | James Bryson MARTIN, petitioner, v. TEXAS. Clem McCLELLAND, petitioner, v. TEXAS. Clem McCLELLAND, petitioner, v. TEXAS. Clyde W. Woody and Marian S. Rosen, for petitioner Martin. J. Edwin Smith and Byron Skelton, for petitioner McClelland. Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., and Carl E. F. Dally, for respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 345,No. 149,No. 508 |
| Decision Date | 22 November 1965 |
v.
TEXAS.
Clyde W. Woody and Marian S. Rosen, for petitioner Martin.
J. Edwin Smith and Byron Skelton, for petitioner McClelland.
Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., and Carl E. F. Dally, for respondent.
Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Denied.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Memorandum of Mr. Chief Justice WARREN:
Each of these three cases stems from the following factual setting:
The Grand Jury of Harris County, Texas, was impaneled on May 7, 1962, to investigate irregularities in the administration of the Probate Court. While Grand Jury sessions were proceeding, the District Attorney of the County, in cooperation with the Justice of the Peace, took the virtually unprecedented step of obtaining an order to institute a 'Court of Inquiry.'
This body, formerly sanctioned by Vernon's Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 886, 887, permits a justice of the peace to summon and examine witnesses and take sworn testimony. Those who fail to comply with his summons or refuse to make statements under oath may be fined and imprisoned. From the year of its enactment—1876—to this date, it appears that the procedure had been seldom invoked.
The secret Grand Jury deliberations were postponed while the District Attorney pursued the Court of Inquiry publicly, in front of the press, radio recorders and television cameras. In this inflamed atmosphere, the petitioners were questioned for some four days, although they objected to testifying. They were not permitted to consult with their attorneys during the proceedings, to de-
Page 929
fend themselves, to cross-examine or confront the witnesses against them, to call witnesses on their behalf, to rebut or to contradict the evidence produced by the prosecution. Two days later, the Grand Jury was reconvened and brought in indictments against the petitioners.
Due to a change of venue and continuances secured by the petitioners, their trials did not take place until more than two years later in a neighboring county. Their pretrial motions to quash the indictments were denied, in two cases without hearings, and they were found guilty of the offenses charged.
The Texas Legislature has since repealed the 'Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf States Mfrs., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., No. 77-2406
...was reached by the Seventh Circuit in NLRB v. My Store, Inc., 345 F.2d 494, 497 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, 382 U.S. 927, 86 S.Ct. 315, 15 L.Ed.2d 340 (1965), as Respondent contends that the Board could not base findings of 8(a)(1) and (3) violations on evidence of respondent's conduct prior ......
-
Skillern v. State, No. 3-91-432-CR
...McCaleb v. State, 537 S.W.2d 728, 731 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); McClelland v. State, 390 S.W.2d 777, 780-81 (Tex.Crim.App.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 928, 86 S.Ct. 307, 15 L.Ed.2d 340 (1966). There is no merit to appellant's Appellant also urges that the evidence is insufficient to show "joint......
-
Peoples Nat. Bank of Washington v. United States, No. C83-680R.
...(1958); Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Savings Ass'n v. United States, 345 F.2d 624 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 927, 86 S.Ct. 316, 15 L.Ed.2d 340 (1965); United States v. First Nat'l Bank of Arizona, 458 F.2d 513 (9th Cir.1972), aff'g 348 F.Supp. 388 (D.Az. 1970). See also United Stat......
-
Martin v. Beto, No. 24672.
...118, 1 L.Ed.2d 119; see also, Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912, 70 S. Ct. 252, 94 L.Ed. 562." Martin v. Texas, 1965, 382 U.S. 928, 929, 86 S.Ct. 307, 15 L.Ed.2d Thereafter, Martin filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas a motion to vacate the judgment, urging rec......
-
Martin v. Beto, No. 24672.
...118, 1 L.Ed.2d 119; see also, Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912, 70 S. Ct. 252, 94 L.Ed. 562." Martin v. Texas, 1965, 382 U.S. 928, 929, 86 S.Ct. 307, 15 L.Ed.2d Thereafter, Martin filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas a motion to vacate the judgment, urging rec......
-
Gustafson, In re, No. 78-3732
...justifying summary contempt, but Rule 42(a) requires certificate). 11 Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. 162, 165, 86 S.Ct. 352, 354, 15 L.Ed.2d 340 (1965). 12 In the words of Chief Justice Burger, the contemnor's conduct "literally disrupted the progress of the trial." United States v. Wils......
-
Gulf States Mfrs., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., No. 77-2406
...was reached by the Seventh Circuit in NLRB v. My Store, Inc., 345 F.2d 494, 497 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, 382 U.S. 927, 86 S.Ct. 315, 15 L.Ed.2d 340 (1965), as Respondent contends that the Board could not base findings of 8(a)(1) and (3) violations on evidence of respondent's conduct prior ......
-
Skillern v. State, No. 3-91-432-CR
...McCaleb v. State, 537 S.W.2d 728, 731 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); McClelland v. State, 390 S.W.2d 777, 780-81 (Tex.Crim.App.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 928, 86 S.Ct. 307, 15 L.Ed.2d 340 (1966). There is no merit to appellant's Appellant also urges that the evidence is insufficient to show "joint......