Morita Keizo v. William Henry

Decision Date16 November 1908
Docket NumberNo. 27,27
Citation53 L.Ed. 125,211 U.S. 146,29 S.Ct. 41
PartiesMORITA KEIZO, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM HENRY, High Sheriff of the Territory of Hawaii
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Duane E. Fox, Arthur S. Browne, and A. S. Humphreys for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Charles R. Hemenway and M. F. Prosser for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Moody delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a writ of error directed to a judgment of the supreme court of the territory of Hawaii, discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff. The plaintiff in error was indicted for murder by a grand jury at a term of a circuit court of the territory, held in August, 1905. The grand jury was composed of sixteen members. A plea in abatement was seasonably filed, alleging that eight of the grand jurors were not citizens of the United States or of the territory,—a qualification prescribed by the laws of the territory. The territory joined issue on this plea. The parties then agreed upon the facts upon which it was based; namely, that the eight grand jurors questioned were citizens only by virtue of judgments of naturalization in a circuit court of the territory. The plea, with the agreed facts, raised the question of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the territory to naturalize aliens. Under a statute of the territory that question was certified to the supreme court, and that court held that the circuit courts of the territory had jurisdiction to naturalize, and that the grand jury possessed the necessary qualifications. Thereupon the trial judge overruled the plea in abatement, and an exception was taken. After due proceedings, plaintiff in error was found guilty as charged, and, on March 22, 1906, sentenced to death. Thereupon he prosecuted a writ of error to the supreme court of the territory, assigning, among other errors, the overruling of the plea in abatement. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed by the supreme court on October 23, 1906, and a death warrant thereupon was issued by the governor of the territory, commanding the high sheriff to execute the sentence of death on January 22, 1907. No writ of error was sued out on the foregoing judgments of the supreme court. The plaintiff in error, however, six days before the date fixed for his execution, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the supreme court of the territory, basing his claim for discharge from custody upon the same facts set forth in the plea of abatement and in the agreed statement of facts. The petition alleged that, for the reason of the disqualification of eight members of the grand jury, the indictment was void, and that the trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed against him under it. The writ of habeas corpus was discharged and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the sheriff, and to this judgment the present writ of error is directed.

The principal question argued before us by counsel is, whether the eight members of the grand jury, whose qualifications were questioned, were naturalized by courts having the authority to naturalize aliens. But we find no occasion to decide or consider this question. If the plaintiff in error desired the judgment of this court upon it, he should have brought a writ of error to the judgment of the supreme court of the territory which passed upon it in affirming the judgment of conviction in the trial court. He may not lie by, as he did in this case, until the time for the execution of the judgment comes near, and then seek to raise collaterally, by habeas corpus, questions not affecting the jurisdiction of the court which convicted him, which were open to him in the original case, and, if properly presented then, could ultimately have come to this court upon writ of error. Unquestionably, if the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction, a prisoner held under its judgment might be discharged from custody upon a writ of habeas corpus by another court having the authority to entertain the writ (Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 21 L. ed. 872; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 25 L. ed. 717; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 28 L. ed. 274, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • Smith v. Brough
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • December 14, 1965
    ...selected. See e. g. Rodriguez v. United States, 198 U.S. 156, 165, 25 S.Ct. 617, 49 L.Ed. 994 (1905); Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 149, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125 (1908). In the latter case the Supreme Court "Disqualifications of grand jurors do not destroy the jurisdiction of the court in ......
  • Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1943
    ...the jurisdiction of the court. Cf. Breese v. United States, 226 U.S. 1, 10, 11, 33 S.Ct. 1, 2, 3, 57 L.Ed. 97; Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 149, 29 S.Ct. 41, 42, 53 L.Ed. 125; Matter of Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 104, 27 S.Ct. 25, 26, 51 L.Ed. 105; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U.S. 442, 451, 31 S.Ct. ......
  • INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WARE. UNION v. Ackerman, Civ. No. 828
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • January 18, 1949
    ...of civil rights cases, Section 31 of the old Judicial Code, presently Section 1443 of revised Title 28, citing Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 148, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125, a case arising in the Territory of Hawaii, and Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U.S. 272, 276, 15 S.Ct. 389, 39 L.Ed. 422. It is......
  • Sunal v. Large Alexander v. United States Kulick
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1947
    ...U.S. 442, 31 S.Ct. 44, 54 L.Ed. 1101, 21 Ann.Cas. 849. 10 Ex parte Harding, 120 U.S. 782, 7 S.Ct. 780, 30 L.Ed. 824; Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125. 11 McMicking v. Schields, 238 U.S. 99, 35 S.Ct. 665, 59 L.Ed. 1220. The rule is even more strict where habeas corpus ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Who Has the Body? The Paths to Habeas Corpus Reform
    • United States
    • Sage Prison Journal, The No. 84-3, September 2004
    • September 1, 2004
    ...The quality of mercy strained: Wresting the pardon power from the king. University of Texas Law Review, 69, 569-641. Koizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146 Law & Contemporary Problems. (1998). Appendix: American Bar Association resolution (Feb- ruary 3, 1997). 61, 219-231. Liebman, J. (1990/1991). Mo......

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