Morita Keizo v. William Henry, 27
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 53 L.Ed. 125,211 U.S. 146,29 S.Ct. 41 |
| Docket Number | No. 27,27 |
| Parties | MORITA KEIZO, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM HENRY, High Sheriff of the Territory of Hawaii |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1908 |
v.
WILLIAM HENRY, High Sheriff of the Territory of Hawaii.
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
Page 147
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Gladden
...428-429, 32 S.Ct. 753, 56 L.Ed. 1147; where members of the grand jury are not citizens as required by state law, Kaizo v. Henry, 1908, 211 U.S. 146, 148, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125; where the issue of whether a confession had been made during a post-epileptic trance has been fully litigated ......
-
Huffman v. Alexander
...render a judgment void or subject to attack in habeas corpus. * * *' (Italics ours.) Again we quoted with approval from Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 29 S.Ct. 41, 42, 53 L.Ed. 125, as 'But no court may properly release a prisoner under conviction and sentence of another court, unless for wa......
-
Williams v. Wayne County Sheriff, No. 1
...or simply not be made at all, the indictment remains a sufficient foundation for the jurisdiction of the trial court. Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125 (1908). Thus, for a Habeas court to receive evidence on this issue would contravene the traditional ban against inter......
-
Smith v. Brough, Civ. No. 16435.
...were improperly 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 ......
-
Smith v. Brough
...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
...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
...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, s. 535
...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 ......
-
Who Has the Body? The Paths to Habeas Corpus Reform
...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......