SAVAGE, PETITIONER
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.
James H. Savage was convicted of murder in the first degree under a Colorado statute that took effect after he committed the crime, making the statute's application to him unconstitutional as an ex post facto law. The Supreme Court granted habeas corpus relief and ordered his discharge from custody, finding that his imprisonment violated the Constitution of the United States.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Mileek,
delivered the opinion, of the court. This case is in every respect the same as that of In re Medley, Petitioner. By petition to us we are advised that Savage ivas, in-dieted by the grand jury of Arapahoe County for the crime of murder in the first degree, charged to have been committed on the 25th day of June, a.d. 1889, by killing one Emanuel Harbert ;.and. that on the 23d of October thereafter he was-found guilty by the jury of murder in the first' degree. A similar judgment to that in the case of Medley was passed upon him, and he' was remanded to the' custody of the warden of the penitentiary of the State of Colorado under an-order of precisely the same character as that in the .case of Medley. It will thus be seen that the same statute involved in that case was the authority under which the court of Colorado rendered its judgment and committed the prisoner to. the care of the warden of the penitentiary; that this statute uame into force after the commission of the offence of which Savage was convicted, and is, therefore, ex post facto in its application to his case.' The same order, therefore, that we have directed to be entered in Medley’s case will be entered in this case, releasing the prisoner from the custody of the warden, after due notice to the attorney general of the State of Colorado.
On consideration of the application for the discharge of the petitioner, James H. Savage, the writ of habeas corpus,- directing J. A. Lamping ', warden of the state penitentiary of the' State of " Colorado at Cañón City, Fremont County, State of Colorado, to produce the body of the said James II Savage'before this court, and to certify tfie cause of his detention and imprisonment, having been duly issued and served, and the said J. A'. Lamping, warden as aforesaid, having certified that said-James H. Savage is detained in his custody under and by virtue of a writ issued out of the District Court of Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, and the cause of said imprisonment having been duly inquired into by this court upon the return of the said writ of habeas corpus heretofore issued herein, and counsel having been heretofore heard and due consideration having been had :
It is now here ordered by this court that the imprisonment of said' James H. Savage under said writ issued out of the District Court of Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, is without awlhority of law , and in violation of the Constitution of the United States., and that the said James H. Savage is entitled^ to have his liberty. WJiereupon it is hereby ordered that the said James H. Savage be, and he is hereby, discharged from said imprisonment.
• Mr. Walter Van Rensselaer Berry and Mr. Henry Wise Garnett (with whom was Mr. A. T. Britton on the brief) for petitioner. Mr. Henry M. Teller, and Mr. Aaron W. Jones, Attorney General of the State of Colorado,
submitted on their brief.
. It is farther ordered that the said J. A. Lamping, warden as aforesaid,'do notify the Attorney General of the State of Colorado of the day and the hour of the d,ay when he will discharge the said James H. Savage from imprisonment, and that such notice be given at least ten days before the release of the prisoner. BRAdlby, J. and Urewbr, J., dissenting.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)…(Cir. Ct. D. Cal. 1880); Ex parte Houghton, 7 Fed. 657, 8 Fed. 897 (D. C. D. Vt. 1881). E. g., Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241; Wo Lee v. Hopkins, decided with Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; Medley, Petitioner, 134 U. S. 160; Savage, Petitioner, 134 U. S. 176; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313 (disapproved in Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U. S. 499); Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86; In re Converse, 137 U. S. 624; In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545; McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U. S. 155; Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 1…
-
Goto v. Lane, 265 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1924)
-
Franchise TAX Bd. OF Cal. v. Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (U.S. 2019)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence