Hurtado v. California - Significance, The Right To Be Indicted, "ancient Established Law", "incapable Of Progress Or Improvement"

Hurtado v. California - Further Readings

Hurtado v. California - Significance

Hurtado v. California is part of a long-standing debate over which rights constitute due process of law and over whether those rights are spelled out in the Constitution or are to be gradually discovered as the Supreme Court hands down various decisions. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868, one of several "Reconstruction" amendments designed to assure that the people who had formerly been …

Hurtado v. California - The Right To Be Indicted

On 20 February 1882, California resident Hurtado was charged with the murder of Jose Antonio Stuardo. A murder charge often results from an indictment by a grand jury--a process whereby a jury of 13 to 23 citizens hears evidence and decides whether enough cause exists to charge someone with a particular crime. Under this system, a grand jury indictment is needed in order to try someone for murder.…

Hurtado v. California - "ancient Established Law"

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Hurtado. Justice Matthews, writing for the majority, explained that the Fourteenth Amendment's notion of due process did not necessarily include the right to a grand jury proceeding. He went on at great length to explain why, offering an argument that was to shape the way that due process was interpreted for many decades to come. Justice Matthews…

Hurtado v. California - "incapable Of Progress Or Improvement"

Matthews, however, was about to introduce a new concept into the American legal tradition. As so many Supreme Court justices had done before him, he acknowledged the importance of tradition--but then he cautioned that innovation was also important:The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by descendants of Englishmen, who inherited the tradition of English law and history; bu…

Hurtado v. California - From Justice Harlan's Mouth To The Warren Court's Ears

The lone dissenter to the Court's majority ruling was Justice Harlan. In his view, if the right to a grand jury had not been a "fundamental" component of due process, it would not have been guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Certain rights, including the right to a grand jury, "were of a character so essential to the safety of the people" that they had been specifically written into "the early Ame…

Hurtado v. California - Related Cases

The idea of "justifiable homicide," in legal terms, is usually considered in terms of self-defense. English common law dictated that a person who killed in self-defense was liable for conviction, but usually he would be pardoned by the king. There are instances where homicide is clearly justified in self-defense, but the legal system takes great care regarding three issues: was the determination o…