The Legal Rights of All the People Due Process of Law - Research Paper Example

 In the proceedings of the Ed Johnson, it is apparent that after the pronouncement of the sentence by the trail court, the defendant/ accused was intended to move an appeal and through his father he had approached to his attorney to prepare the case for appeal. But unfortunately no such appeal is seen on record. It appears to me that instead of preferring an appeal on the advice of Judge McReynolds to move a motion for de novo trial the next day of this discussion. The same motion was denied by the same judge on the plea that the same is not maintainable being time barred by one day. The delay of one day was declared as too late. This situation where indicates a bias on part of the judge, also indicates that the proper forum was ignored by the attorney and no appeal was preferred there onward. The next step followed by them was a petition in Federal District Court for habeas corpus. (Mark Curriden and Leroy Phillips, 1999) Question 2: Where does this step fit in our dual court system? Answer: There are two types of court systems in the world. One where there is a linear hierarchy prevails and appeal of one court goes to the next higher forum irrespective of the fact that it is a state court or a federal court as all courts are integrated in a common hierarchal system, except the apex court has the exclusive right to interpret the constitution and adjudicate upon it. This is the case in India. In dual system like ours, there are two different streams of court and have their own areas of adjudication. Normally no court interferes in the matters of the other stream and the rout to appeals is defined. (Miner, Roger J., 1986) But in case of Ed Johnson, instead of preferring an appeal in the District court of the state, the attorney filed an application for de novo trails, on an informal advice of the Judge who on the other day was about to hear the case. This move was again in contradiction to the directions initially given by his client, too. Question 3: Explain what steps Ed Johnson’s appeal should have followed. Answer: As per law of the land and the procedure\s provided by the legislature, the appropriate step was to follow an appeal against the decision of jury and the court of first instance to get the order reversed form the competent forum. In this regard, it was appropriate that after receiving all the record of the case and the testimonials of the case, a duly prepared appeal would be filed. Question 4: What happened to Ed Johnson’s right to his first appeal? Answer: It appears that the attorney of the accused pursued the wrong forum instead of moving in line with the described procedure. There is no denial of the fact that an application for new trial can also be preferred but the attorney must have the knowledge of law of limitation in this regard. It is found that at no stage this right of appeal was preferred or even tried to pursue and due to non-availing of the same, it ceased to exist or in other words it was lost. In the later part of the episode, two black attorneys on behalf of Johnson tried to file an appeal in Tennessee Supreme Court, which was denied by an unfavorable court. Question 5: Did Ed Johnson get a trial transcript for his appeal? Explain. Answer: Getting of transcript of the trial including testimonial of the witness is a right of the parties to a case so that they could prefer an appeal. In this case too, on direction of the defendant, attorney was liable to get a copy of the testimonial and trail transcript, but a mentioned earlier the appointed attorney was not convinced with the idea of success in case of appeal, rather he believed that it might provoke the public more and Johnson may be killed with other prison by angry mob of the people. It was therefore, the record was nether sought from the court nor any appeal was preferred in time. Question 6: What court first considered a writ or collateral attack? State or federal? Answer: In the case of Ed Johnson, it was the Federal District Court which heard the claim of the accused in the first instance. In this hearing, in the federal district court at Knoxville, constitutional claims of Johnson were considered.  District Attorney Whitaker represented the state in the Johnson case. Question 7: What was the first federal court to consider a writ or collateral attack? Why was the case in federal court? Federal District Court was the first federal court to discuss and adjudicated upon the writ of habeas corpus by Ed Johnson. Ed Johnson’s attorneys considered the trails of the case as unfair and therefore moved this writ or collateral attack to safe guard the rights of their client under Amendment 6 of the Constitution of United States of America. Amendment 6 of the constitution provides as under,” In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”. (Constitution of USA) American constitution gives the guarantees to all the citizens of America of their fundamental rights and provides the mechanism to safe guard these rights through a procedure of writs where these rights are not defendable under normal procedure of law in a state. It is the jurisdiction of a federal court under the constitution. It was therefore, petition was filed in a federal court instead of a state court. Question 8: What made Ed Johnson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus extraordinary? Writs of rights are not normally a matter of great importance, but in the case of Ed Johnson, it gained an importance due to following reasons: It is not the normal jurisdiction of a federal court to interfere in the criminal proceedings of the state judiciary. It was an unprecedented move which raised a lot of eye brows in the state circles. In the wake of uprising in the district, the Judge dismissed the petition and stayed the execution for next 10 days. Attorneys of the accused availed an opportunity to meet the Judges of Supreme Court of United States on the issue and sensitized the whole issue. Permission was granted to file petition in the Federal Supreme Court and execution was stayed. Question 9: What types of issues were permitted in Ed Johnson’s habeas corpus? In the petition of habeas corpus by Ed Johnson was permitted and admitted to be heard in the federal court. In this case following issues of legal importance were raised and discussed: Whether the court has any jurisdiction to hear the case or not? Whether the petitioner was given a chance of fair trail or not? Whether in any way this petition attracts the provision of Amendment Sixth of the constitution. Issues as to dual process of law and equal protection right to all citizens of United States were also under discussion in this case. Question 10: Explain how the concepts of Due Process and Equal Protection applied to the habeas corpus petition for Ed Johnson? Answer: Due process of law indicates that legal rights of all the people must be respected in all the circumstances in accordance with law without any exception. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state. This right is protected in Fifth Amendment which is also a part of bill of rights in the US constitution. (Edward S. Corwin, 1911; US Constituion) Whereas on the other hand, law of equal protection as enshrined in the constitution proves for an assurance of equal treatment of all the people of America without any distinction and biases. It is in line of the faith that all men are created equal. It was introduced with the fourteenth amendment in the constitution and it provides for the fair and free trail, access to justice, right to defend and provision of attorney etc. (Fourteenth Amendment US Constitution,; Tussman, Jospeh, TenBroek and Jacobus, 1948) Question 11: How did Ed Johnson’s habeas petition seek to give defendants’ additional federal constitutional right? Answer: As per sixth amendment all citizens have the right of equal treatment in the eye of law and have the access to justice. But in this case, the attitude of the court was biased under pressure form the people and in this way this right was breached. That is why this petition was preferred. Question 12: Identify the name of the court that conducted habeas corpus petition hearing? Answer: The court which conducted the hearings of habeas corpus petition of Johnson was Federal District Court ( The United States circuit court) at Knoxville. Question 13: What was the name of that judge? Answer: The name of the judge who pronounced judgment in this case was Justice Clarke. Question 14: What happened at that hearing? Describe the testimony? Answer: In that hearing attorney from the state presented and defended the acts of the state being in accordance with the law. The judge on this point refused to accede to the request of the petitioner and disposed off the petition with a direction of stay of execution for ten days. Question 15: What was the basis of the ruling of that court? Answer: The basis of the decision was the duality of the legal system prevailing in USA in which no federal court has jurisdiction to hear any case pertaining to the criminal proceedings. Question 16: Did the court stay Ed Johnson’s execution? Answer: Yes, in this case besides refusal to accede to the request of the petitioner, the court however, stayed the execution of the sentence by ten days. Question 17: What role did Justice Harlan play in the habeas petition? Answer: Justice Harlan of the supreme court of United Sates of America had gained a fame in past few years of this case for his dissenting note in one of the famous case titled as Plessy vs. Ferguson. After the rejection of petition by the judge at Feral District Court, at Knoxville, attorneys of Johnson tried to make a move for the supreme court in order to invoke original jurisdiction of the court to grant an injunction. It was an unprecedented move. These attorneys met Justice Harlan and tried to convince him about the gravity of the matter. A petition was formally filed in his court and Justice Harlan discussed the matter keeping in view the gravity of the case with his other colleagues at the Supreme Court in formally and gained their support on the issue. Later on the court in the proper hearing of the petition announces the stay of the execution of the sentence and admitted the petition for regular hearing. In this way, Justice Harlan had played a very important role in constitutional history of America by an introduction of legal precedent for the federal courts to interfere in the proceedings of the state wherever there is a breach of amendment sixth of the Constitution or fundamental rights of a person. Question 18: How was it decided that the US Supreme Court would Ed Johnson’s habeas petition? What influenced that decision? Answer: Federal courts do not interfere in the affairs of the state by allowing writ petitions, especially where the matter pertains to the criminal proceedings of the state prosecution and judiciary. But in the case of Ed Johnson, extraordinary situation was felt by the court and in view of discrimination news in the state against the blacks on one count or the other, it was felt that basic and fundamental rights of that community were under threat in the very area and the present case had a direct bearing upon the overall situation prevailing in the area. In connection to this case, after stay order of the execution by Federal District court for ten days, the attorneys of the accused approached the judges in the supreme court of United states in Washington who gave it a serious thought and after a long discussion among the other justices of the court, it was decided that this petition must be given a chance to be heard to secure the fundamental rights of the people there. It might be argued that it was a n attempt to undermine the jurisdiction of the state judiciary, but to the most eminent jurists and people from the different walks of like in the subsequent years it was felt that the decision was right, as the same was proved in the contempt of court proceedings in case titled United States V. Shipp.( United States v. Shipp) Question 19: How was the US Supreme court’s decision to even consider the habeas petition received by the public? Answer: Reaction of the public I the state was not welcoming the t the consideration of the petition of habeas corpus. A mob came out in the morning and broke into the jail. They took the law in their own hands and executed the sentence of Ed Johnson by lynching him in the public. In the later episodes connecting with this issue, protests from the black community were broke and the business of the state was on stand still. The mayor ordered to close all the financial activities in the area of disturbance, till the situation came under control. Question 20: What happened to Ed Johnson after the US Supreme Court agreed to hear his habeas petition? Answer: Soon after the admission of the petition of Habeas corpus in the Federal Supreme Court of United State of America, a mob directed and abetted by the Sheriff Joseph Shipp broke into the jail where Johnson was kept. The mob got him and dragged him out and executed him by lynching him publicly, hence denied the stay order of the supreme court of America. Justice Harlan found it disturbing and said the perhaps it was the first time in the constitutional history of USA, when people had publicly defied the orders of the court and act in a manner prejudicial to what the father of the constitution were willing to engrave into it. In the later moves, case against the Sheriff and nine others was nominated in a case of contempt of court where all the participants of the mob had acted in defiance of the court order. In this petition all the accused pleaded not guilty on plea of alibi or mistaken identity. On the completion of the trail, court declared all the ten defendant guilty and awarded 90 days’ punishment in this regard. References: Constitution of USA, USA publications United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 Mark Curriden and Leroy Phillips, 1999, Contempt Of Court: The Turn Of The Century Lynching That Launched 100 Year, New York: Faber and Faber Edward S. Corwin, 1911, The Doctorine Of Due Process Of Law Before The Civil War, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 5, Pp. 366-385 Tussman, Jospeh, TenBroek and Jacobus, 1948, Equal Protection of the Laws; 37 Cal. L. Rev. 341 Miner, Roger J., 1986, The Tensions of a Dual Court System and Some Prescriptions for Relief 51 Alb. L. Rev. 151 Read More