North v. Russell
Decision Date | 21 March 1975 |
Citation | 540 S.W.2d 4 |
Parties | Lonnie NORTH, Appellant, v. C. B. RUSSELL and Nathaniel 'Trap' Helton, Harlan County Jailer, Appellees. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Eugene Goss, Eugene E. Goss, Harlan, Dean Hill Rivkin, Lexington, for appellant.
Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Kenneth A. Howe, Jr., Asst. Deputy Atty . Gen., Frankfort, Wix Unthank, Commonwealth's Atty., Harlan, for appellees.
This proceeding began with a petition for habeas corpus filed in the Harlan Circuit Court by the appellant, Lonnie North, against the appellees, C. B. Russell, police judge of the City of Lynch, and Nathaniel 'Trap' Helton, jailer of Harlan County. North alleged that he was being detained in the county jail pursuant to a judgment of the police court finding him guilty of drunk driving 1 and fixing his punishment at 30 days in jail and a fine of $150. 2 Entitlement to relief by way of habeas corpus was asserted on the theory that because the statute prescribing then qualifications of police judges in fifth and sixth-class cities 3 do not require any legal training or knowledge, and because Judge Russell is a 'lay' judge, unlearned in the law, the action or judgment by which North was committed to jail violated his rights of due process and equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment and was void.
Though sympathetic to North's constitutional argument, the trial court relied upon Ditty v. Hampton, Ky., 490 S.W.2d 772 (1973), in denying relief, and the judgment was affirmed by this court in North v. Russell, Ky., 516 S.W.2d 103 (1974). North then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
In response to a jurisdictional statement and brief filed in the Supreme Court by North the Attorney-General of Kentucky filed a motion to dismiss or affirm in which the following footnote appeared:
4
On the basis of this footnote the Supreme Court has vacated our judgment in North v. Russell, supra, and remanded the case 'for further consideration in light of the position presently asserted by the Commonwealth,' to the utter...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
North v. Russell
...equally, the different classifications within the court system are justified. Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22, 25 L.Ed. 989. Pp. 338-339. 540 S.W.2d 4, Charles E. Goss, for appellant. Robert L. Chenoweth, Lawrenceburg, Ky., for appellees. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the......