United States v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 16 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | 8272. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. RENNIE v. BROOKS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
John F Jordan and A. F. Freeman, both of Detroit, Mich., for relator.
Earl J Davis, U.S. Dist. Atty., of Detroit, Mich., for respondent.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding, brought by an alien who alleges that he is unlawfully detained by United States immigration officials by virtue of a warrant for his deportation, under which they are about to deport him. He asserts that such warrant is illegal and void, and he seeks to be released from custody thereunder. It appears that petitioner was arrested given a hearing, and thereupon ordered to be deported, on the ground, among others, that he admits having committed, prior to his entry into the United States, a crime involving moral turpitude, namely, the crime of bigamy.
It is urged on behalf of the petitioner (1) that he was denied a fair hearing by the immigration officers; (2) that the crime in question, by reason of certain alleged extenuating circumstances, did not involve moral turpitude; and (3) that the admissions made by him at said hearing concerning his commission of such crime cannot be considered as evidence, because they were elicited from him by an immigration inspector in violation of his constitutional right to refuse to testify against himself.
The general rules of law applicable to such a proceeding are too well settled and familiar to call for the citation of authorities or any extended discussion. If, for example, there is any evidence in support of a finding of fact on which the warrant of deportation is based, this court will not review disputed questions of fact, nor substitute its judgment thereon for that of the executive officials vested with authority to decide such facts. In short, findings, decisions, and actions of such officials will be set aside by the court only if they be without any support in the evidence, or if they be in excess of legal jurisdiction and therefore void, or if they be founded on erroneous conclusions of law, or if the alien in question has been deprived of a fair hearing.
1. Careful examination of the record of the deportation proceedings, including the public hearing, at which petitioner was represented by counsel and was afforded ample time and opportunity to prepare and present proofs and arguments in his defense, leaves no room to doubt that his complaint that he was denied a fair hearing is wholly without merit.
2. I find in the record nothing in connection with the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime referred to, and admitted by petitioner, which can properly be regarded as relieving such crime of the element of moral turpitude ordinarily, if not always, attached thereto.
3. It is urged with considerable vehemence by counsel for petitioner that the latter has been deprived, by the course of the immigration officials in questioning him concerning the crime charged as a ground for his deportation, of his constitutional immunity, under the Fourth Amendment, against the compulsory production by him of self-criminating testimony, and it is insisted that, as his statements admitting the said crime were given unwillingly and over objections by his counsel, which were overruled by the examining inspector, they did not constitute admissions in contemplation of law, and they cannot be considered as evidence against him in this proceeding. The constitutional requirement referred to provides that--
'No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. ' Const. Amend. 5.
The protection of this, as of various other articl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. United States
...U.S. 34, 45 S.Ct. 16, 69 L.Ed. 158; Perkins Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Owen, D. C., 293 F. 759; 70 C.J. 721, § 874. See, United States v. Brooks, D.C., 284 F. 908, 909; Colyer v. Skeffington, D.C., 265 F. 17, It appears that the trial court did not determine during the contempt proceeding, n......
-
United States v. Neelly
...1016, 1017; Taranto v. Haff, 10 Cir., 88 F.2d 85; U. S. ex rel. Tisi v. Tod, 264 U.S. 131, 44 S.Ct. 260, 68 L.Ed. 590; U. S. ex rel. Rennie v. Brooks, D.C., 284 F. 908. With this rule in mind, we examine the evidence submitted upon the fairness of the hearings, including the original one of......
-
Ex parte Suzanna
...(U.S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253, 25 Sup.Ct. 644, 49 L.Ed. 1040; Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 42 Sup.Ct. 492, 66 L.Ed. 938; U.S. v. Brooks (D.C.) 284 F. 908), that their orders are subject to revision if they depend for their validity on a question of law (Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U.S. 3, 36 S......
-
United States v. Schlotfeldt, 6934.
...Doak, 7 Cir., 61 F.2d 566. 2 Lewis v. Frick, 233 U.S. 291, 34 S.Ct. 488, 58 L.Ed. 967; Taranto v. Haff, 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 85; United States v. Brooks, D.C., 284 F. 908: Section 155, Title 8, United States Code, 8 U.S.C.A. § 3 Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 287 U.S. 341, 53 S.Ct. 152, 77 L.Ed. 350; ......