EX PARTE HARDING
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.
The Supreme Court denied a habeas corpus petition filed by a person imprisoned under sentence of a territorial court, holding that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to reviewing alleged procedural irregularities or errors in a territorial court's criminal proceedings unless the sentence exceeded the court's jurisdiction or lacked authority to impose it. The Court ruled that allowing an alien to serve on a grand jury and denying compulsory process for witnesses were matters of procedural regularity rather than jurisdictional defects, and thus could not be corrected through federal habeas review.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This motion is denied.. This court has no jurisdiction for ' the discharge on habeas corpus of a person imprisoned under the sentence of a territorial court in a criminal case, unless the sentence exceeds the jurisdiction of that court, or there is no authority to hold him under the sentence. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 420, and the cases there cited. The fact that a law of the. territory allowed an alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States to sit on a grand jury, and that an-alien did-in fact sit on the jury that found the indictment against this' petitioner, did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction for his trial under the indictment. • The objection, if it be one, goes only to the regu-. larity of the proceedings, not to the jurisdiction of the court. The same is true of the allegation in the petition that the petitioner was denied his right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. For such errors or irregularities, if they exist, a judgment is not void, and a writ of habeas corpus gives this court no authority for their correction.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1911)
-
Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923)…ed, it would be an effective and conclusive adjudication. Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340; Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 169; Voorhees v. Bank [*416] of United States, 10 Pet. 449, 474; Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wall. 226, 249; Ex parte Harding, 120 U. S. 782. Under the legislation of Congress' no' court of the United States other than this Court could entertain á proceed-; ing to reverse or modify the judgment -for errors of that character. Judicial Code, §237, -as amended September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2…
-
Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1947)…1 (same); Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540 (jury trial); Johnson v. Zerbst, supra (right to counsel); Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275 (same); Waley v. Johnston, supra (coerced plea of guilty). Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442. Ex parte Harding, 120 U. S. 782; Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U. S. 146. McMicking v. Schields, 238 U. S. 99. The rule is even more strict where habeas corpus is sought before trial. See Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245. In re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 178; Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U. S. 542; Glasg…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 (U.S. 1885)