Criminal Procedure: The Custody Requirement for Habeas Corpus Relief in the Federal Courts

1963 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 228
Author(s):  
Alfred Gertmenian
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Habeas Corpus

John Marshall’s Sea Mine

2018 ◽  
pp. 88-97
Author(s):  
Eric M. Freedman
Keyword(s):  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Other ◽  
British History ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
Political Background

The notion of an independent judiciary that restrained the other branches was an infant with a questionable life expectancy when John Marshall stated in placatory dicta in Ex Parte Bollman (1807)—quite wrongly as a matter of both British history and American constitutional law— that the federal courts had no inherent authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus in the absence of legislation. The Suspension Clause, he claimed, was merely precatory, an injunction to Congress to pass such legislation. The highly political case involved Erick Bollman and Samuel Swartwout, alleged members of the Aaron Burr conspiracy, and pitted prominent federalists such as petitioners’ counsel Robert Goodloe Harper and Charles Lee against the administration of Thomas Jefferson. After reviewing the factual and political background, this chapter details the arguments of counsel in favor of inherent judicial authority to grant the writ and Marshall’s rejection of them. Judicial autonomy was under threat at the time and Marshall was trying to defend it But his words were a judicial sea mine that created a long-term danger: Congress could by simple inaction evade the bedrock prohibition against suspension of the writ.

Rules for Courts: The Role of Lawyers, Judges, Professors and Government

1978 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-473
Author(s):  
Jack B. Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court

This discussion covers some methods and institutions for changing procedures in the courts. More particularly, I refer to procedures for conducting litigations in courts of general jurisdiction, that is to say, civil procedure, criminal procedure and evidence.Since criminal procedure and evidence are controlled here by statutes, I realize that when the terms “rules” or “regulations” are used you would normally think only of civil procedure. I use the term “rules” in a broader sense since in federal courts in the United States, most procedure governing civil and criminal trials and appeals, including evidence, stems from rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, subject to modification by Congress.I shall describe briefly the history and present situation in the United States, making some reference to the British method, touch on the Israeli method, and then draw some general conclusions, raising some questions about the Israeli pattern as I understand it. These countries are comparable since each has a strong, independent judiciary and a tradition of freedom and the rule of law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document