Washington Lott v. David Pittman

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McKenna
• Citation: Washington Lott v. David Pittman, 243 U.S. 588, 37 S.Ct. 473, 61 L.Ed. 915 (1917)
• Decision Date: 30 April 1917
• Docket Number: No. 894,894
• Parties: G. WASHINGTON LOTT, Appt., v. DAVID W. PITTMAN, Sheriff of Ware County, Georgia

243 U.S. 588

37 S.Ct. 473

61 L.Ed. 915

G. WASHINGTON LOTT, Appt.,

v DAVID W. PITTMAN, Sheriff of Ware County, Georgia.

No. 894.

Submitted April 13, 1917.

Decided April 30, 1917.

Messrs. John Randolph Cooper and T. A. Wallace for appellant.

Mr. Clifford Walker, Attorney General of Georgia, for appellee.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

Petition in habeas corpus, in which appellant was petitioner, which presents the following facts, stated narratively:

Appellant is confined in the common jail of Ware county in execution of a life sentence upon conviction for murder, the sentence having been affirmed by the supreme court of that state. The court was evenly divided in opinion, and therefore the judgment was affirmed by operation of law under the provision of that part of § 6116 of the Code of Georgia of 1910 which is as follows: 'In all cases decided by a full bench of six justices, the concurrence of a majority shall be essential to a judgment of reversal; and if the justices are evenly divided, the judgment of the court below shall stand affirmed.'

Three of the judges did not hear the argument, but participated in the opinion of the court.

The case was argued before the supreme court on June 3, 1916, and when it was argued Justice Gilbert was not even a member of the court, but was appointed in September, 1916, to fill the place made vacant by the death of a member of the court.

Upon these facts if is averred that appellant was denied a right guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States,—the benefit of counsel and right to be heard,—which abridged his privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, deprived him of liberty without due process of law, and of his right to have a judicial determination of his guilt or innocence by a reviewing court.

Attached to the petition was a transcript of the record in the trial court and the supreme court.

His prayer to be discharged was denied. An appeal was allowed, the court certifying that there was probable cause.

It appears from the transcript of the record that the judgment affirming the sentence was rendered after Justice Gilbert had taken his seat as a member of the court, and that if he had not taken part the judgment would have been reversed. It also appears that after the judgment a petition for rehearing was filed which attacked the statute permitting a judgment of affirmance by a divided court upon the same grounds as those alleged in the petition for habeas corpus and now urged here, and also attacked the...