EX PARTE JOHN WARRIS AND JOHN JOHNSON-HABEAS CORPUS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioners John Warris and John Johnson, held under indictment for assault with intent to murder in Wakulla County, seek habeas corpus relief alleging denial of speedy trial rights and defects in grand jury selection. The Florida Supreme Court denies relief, holding that grand jury irregularities must be challenged in the trial court and that a single continuance does not constitute a denial of speedy trial.
Habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy to challenge grand jury irregularities, which must be raised in the trial court through proper procedure. Even assuming habeas corpus could address speedy trial claims, a single continuance granted without showing of bad cause does not constitute a denial of speedy trial rights.
“Defects or irregularities in the selection of the list of registered voters from which grand jurors are drawn, or in the drawing of the same, must be taken advantage of in the trial court by the proper procedure.”
Establishes that grand jury irregularities must be raised in trial court, not via habeas corpus
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWarris and Johnson were indicted in Wakulla County Circuit Court for assault with intent to murder. Warris was tried and convicted in October, but his…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excessive Bail cases and more on FLexlaw
Raney, C. J.:
The petitioners are held under an indictment found in the Circuit Court of Wakulla county, and shown by the record to have presented in oioen court, charging them with an assault with intent to murder in that county. There is no doubt or question of that court’s jurisdiction of the offense.
Defects or irregularities in the selection of the list of registered voters from which grand jurors are drawn, or in the drawing of the same, must be taken advantage of in the trial court by the proper procedure. Potsdamer vs. State, 17 Fla., 895; Gallaher vs. State, 17 Fla., 370; Burroughs vs. State, 17 Fla., 643; Gladden vs. State, 13 Fla., 623; Savage and James vs. State, 18 Fla., 909. Such irregularties cannot be questioned by a habeas corpus proceeding. Ex parte Prince, (January Term, 1891,) 27 Fla., 9 South. Rep.; Ex parte Bowen, 25 Fla., 214; 6 South. Rep., 65.
One of the petitioners, Warns, was tried and convicted in'October last at the term at which they were indicted, and the judgment was reversed by this court, upon a writ of error, early in the month of March of this year. Johnson was not in custody at the time of the trial in the Circuit Court. At the Spring term in April of the present year, Johnson, who had been arrested in the interim, and Warris being in court on the second day of the term, the State-Attorney made a motion for a continuance, whereupon the prisoners by their counsel demanded an immediate trial, which the court denied, and at the same time continued the cause till the next term. Petitioners ask to be discharged on the ground that they have been denied the “ right to a speedy and public trial * * ,” guar anteed by the eleventh section of our Bill of Rights. Assuming, for the purposes of this case alone, that habeas corpus may be the remedy for relief for a denial of the right secured by this provision of the constitution, still it cannot be presumed that the continuance was granted without good cause. There is nothing before us to impeach the contrary presumption, which obtains in this case as ordinarily ; and one continuance cannot be held, under such circumstances, to be a denial of a speedy trial.
There is no complaint in the petition that the amount of bail fixed by the Circuit Judge is excessive, nor is any testimony before us to enable us to pass upon this point.
The prisoners should be remanded, and it will be so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1919)…, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed as a limitation upon the reasonable discretion of the courts, in the continuance of cases.” Secs. 3969, 3976, Gen. Stats. 1906,. Florida Compiled Laws, 1914. In the case of Ex parte Warris, 28 Fla. 371, 9 South. Rep. 718, this court held that in the absence of any showing that the continuance was granted without good cause it cannot be held that one continuance amounts to a denial of a speedy trial. In that case the court assumed the rule to apply…
-
Colson v. State, 51 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1906)…Reynolds v. State, 33 Fla. 301, 14 South. Rep. 723; Kitrol v State, 9 Fla. 9; Gladden v. State, 13 Fla. 623; text 630; Burroughs v. State, 17 Fla. 643; Potsdamer v. State, 17 Fla. 895; Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 702, 6 South. Rep. 768; Ex Parte Warris, 28 Fla. 371, 9 South. Rep. 718; Donald v. State, 31 Fla. 255, text 262, 12 South. Rep. 695; Tervin v. State, 37 Fla. 396, 20 South. Rep. 551; Tarrance v. State, 43 Fla. 446, 30 South. Rep. 685. The ninth ground of the motion is as follows: “9th. Because at the…
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. v. Dowling, 91 Fla. 236 (Fla. 1926)…gree on a verdict, a continuance was arbitrarily ordered without the acquiescence of the accused, he may not ordinarily be released from custody on reduced bail or without bail. See Griswold v. State, 77 Fla. 505, 82 South. Rep. 44; Ex parte Warris; 28 Fla. 371, 9 South. Rep. 718. It appears the petitioner was tried at each successive term ‘“after his examination,” therefore he is not entitléd to “be forever discharged from the crime” under 'Section 6057, Rev. Gen. Stats. Such statutes as those in Texas an…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Savage v. State, 18 Fla. 909 (Fla. 1882)
- Ex-parte Mack Bowen, 25 Fla. 214 (Fla. 1889)
- Gottschalk Potsdamer v. State, 17 Fla. 895 (Fla. 1880)
- Burroughs v. State, 17 Fla. 643 (Fla. 1880)
- Silas Gladden v. State, 13 Fla. 623 (Fla. 1869)
- Gallaher v. State, 17 Fla. 370 (Fla. 1879)