Appellant
Hurtado
Appellee
State of California
Appellant's Claim
Because he was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death without having been indicted by a grand jury, he was deprived of his right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
A. L. Hart
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
John T. Cary
Justices for the Court
Samuel Blatchford, Joseph P. Bradley, Stephen Johnson Field, Horace Gray, Stanley Matthews (writing for the Court), Samuel Freeman Miller, Morrison RemickWaite, William Burnham Woods
Justices Dissenting
John Marshall Harlan I
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
3 March 1884
Decision
The Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of "due process" cannot be held to include the rights specified in the Fifth Amendment, and that therefore Hurtado's conviction and death sentence should stand.
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 Courthands 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 slaves had full legal rights as U.S. citizens. According to the Fourteenth Amendment,no state had the right to "make or enforce any law" that deprived any person"of life, liberty or property, without due process of law . . . " Previously,the Constitution had focused on what the federal government could or could not do. Now, the Fourteenth Amendment was specifying limitations on state governments.
Because the Fourteenth Amendment opened up a whole new area of law, it gave rise to many court cases. Over the second half of the nineteenth century, theSupreme Court handed down many decisions that helped to define what the Fourteenth Amendment meant by "due process of law." One of the most significant ofthese decisions was Hurtado v. California.
The Right to Be Indicted
On 20 February 1882, California resident Hurtado was charged with the murderof Jose Antonio Stuardo. A murder charge often results from an indictment bya 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.
The right to a grand jury for capital crimes (crimes that might result in thedeath penalty) is actually spelled out in the Fifth Amendment. However, theFifth Amendment only covers federal courts. Murder trials generally take place in state courts.
That was the case with Hurtado, who was tried in a California state court. According to California law, Hurtado was examined by a magistrate who decided,based on the information presented to him, that there were indeed grounds totry Hurtado for murder. The trial was held, Hurtado was found guilty, and on5 June 1882, he was sentenced to death.
At this point, Hurtado claimed that he was not being treated fairly. He pointed out that he had never received a grand jury trial which, he charged, violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law.
"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 notionof 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 wasto shape the way that due process was interpreted for many decades to come. Justice Matthews began by taking on Hurtado's argument:
In other words, Matthews said, Hurtado was arguing that the right to a grandjury proceeding was a very ancient right indeed, one that had belonged to every English subject centuries before the United States was ever founded. In fact, the Supreme Court had long thought of "ancient established law"--the rights traditionally granted to British citizens--as the very basis for Americanlaw.
"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:
Therefore, Matthews argued, if the only test that the Court had for due process was "settled usage"--what had always been done--the law would be "incapable of progress or improvement." And from that point followed his decision: California had the right to try out a new system of due process. If the state ofCalifornia wanted to try people for murder without going through a grand-jury proceeding, why should it not have that right? Who was to say that due process could not take on a new definition from the one that English citizens hadenjoyed for hundreds of years?
From Justice Harlan's mouth to the Warren Court's ears
The lone dissenter to the Court's majority ruling was Justice Harlan. In hisview, if the right to a grand jury had not been a "fundamental" component ofdue 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 Amendments of the Constitution . . . " Harlan, as a minority of one, did not prevail. Instead, the majority decision meant that the Court spent much of the next few decades hammering out its notions of due process, by means of ruling on various cases.
In 1953, Earl Warren became the Supreme Court chief justice. Under his leadership, virtually every right guaranteed by both the Fifth and the Sixth Amendments was incorporated into the legal understanding of due process: the rightto counsel, the right against self-incrimination, the right of the accused toconfront his or her accuser, the right to a speedy trial, the right to trialby jury, and the right to protection against double jeopardy (being tried orpunished twice for the same crime).
Many legal commentators saw the decisions of the Warren Court as a departurefrom the Court's previous cautious approach to establishing rights. However,some commentators have had the opposite reaction. They see the so-called activism of the Warren Court as returning to the traditional understanding of rights, the one that existed before Hurtado. In that view, Hurtadowas the departure, the case in which, for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court ignored the traditional English common law provisions spelled out in theBill of Rights in favor of the possibilities of "progress and improvement."
Related Cases
Is There Such a Thing as Justifiable Homicide?
The idea of "justifiable homicide," in legal terms, is usually considered interms 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 bythe king.
There are instances where homicide is clearly justified in self-defense, butthe legal system takes great care regarding three issues: was the determination on the part of the accused that killing was necessary to defend himself a"reasonable" decision? Was the attack "imminent," therefore justifying an actof self-defense? And did he use a level of force necessary in repelling theattacker, or was it excessive?
On some levels, it is easy, when confronted with the situation of a woman whokills her rapist or a man who shoots a home invader, to automatically agreewith the self-defense plea. However, American justice attempts to take account of other contingencies. One of these is a concern regarding vigilantism: when Charles Bronson in the Death Wish movies goes out and looks for muggers to rob him, so that he can shoot them, this may feel justified--but it is legally indefensible.
Sources
Kadish, Sanford H., ed. Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice. New York: Free Press, 1983.
Hurtado
Appellee
State of California
Appellant's Claim
Because he was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death without having been indicted by a grand jury, he was deprived of his right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
A. L. Hart
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
John T. Cary
Justices for the Court
Samuel Blatchford, Joseph P. Bradley, Stephen Johnson Field, Horace Gray, Stanley Matthews (writing for the Court), Samuel Freeman Miller, Morrison RemickWaite, William Burnham Woods
Justices Dissenting
John Marshall Harlan I
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
3 March 1884
Decision
The Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of "due process" cannot be held to include the rights specified in the Fifth Amendment, and that therefore Hurtado's conviction and death sentence should stand.
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 Courthands 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 slaves had full legal rights as U.S. citizens. According to the Fourteenth Amendment,no state had the right to "make or enforce any law" that deprived any person"of life, liberty or property, without due process of law . . . " Previously,the Constitution had focused on what the federal government could or could not do. Now, the Fourteenth Amendment was specifying limitations on state governments.
Because the Fourteenth Amendment opened up a whole new area of law, it gave rise to many court cases. Over the second half of the nineteenth century, theSupreme Court handed down many decisions that helped to define what the Fourteenth Amendment meant by "due process of law." One of the most significant ofthese decisions was Hurtado v. California.
The Right to Be Indicted
On 20 February 1882, California resident Hurtado was charged with the murderof Jose Antonio Stuardo. A murder charge often results from an indictment bya 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.
The right to a grand jury for capital crimes (crimes that might result in thedeath penalty) is actually spelled out in the Fifth Amendment. However, theFifth Amendment only covers federal courts. Murder trials generally take place in state courts.
That was the case with Hurtado, who was tried in a California state court. According to California law, Hurtado was examined by a magistrate who decided,based on the information presented to him, that there were indeed grounds totry Hurtado for murder. The trial was held, Hurtado was found guilty, and on5 June 1882, he was sentenced to death.
At this point, Hurtado claimed that he was not being treated fairly. He pointed out that he had never received a grand jury trial which, he charged, violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law.
"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 notionof 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 wasto shape the way that due process was interpreted for many decades to come. Justice Matthews began by taking on Hurtado's argument:
. . . thatthe phrase "due process of law" . . . has acquired a fixed, definite, and technical meaning; that it refers to and includes, not only the general principles of public liberty and private right, which lie at the foundation of all free government, but [also] the very institutions which . . . have been . . .the birthright and inheritance of every English subject . . . [and] that oneof these institutions is that of the grand jury . . . in order that he may not be harassed or destroyed by prosecutions founded only upon private malice or popular fury . . .
In other words, Matthews said, Hurtado was arguing that the right to a grandjury proceeding was a very ancient right indeed, one that had belonged to every English subject centuries before the United States was ever founded. In fact, the Supreme Court had long thought of "ancient established law"--the rights traditionally granted to British citizens--as the very basis for Americanlaw.
"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 ofEnglish law and history; but it was made for an undefined and expanding future, and for a people gathered and to be gathered from many Nations and of manytongues. And while we take just pride in [English] . . . common law, we arenot to forget that in lands where other systems . . . prevail, . . . justice[is] . . . not unknown . . . [W]e should expect that the new and various experiences of our own situation and system will mold and shape it into new and not less useful forms . . .
Therefore, Matthews argued, if the only test that the Court had for due process was "settled usage"--what had always been done--the law would be "incapable of progress or improvement." And from that point followed his decision: California had the right to try out a new system of due process. If the state ofCalifornia wanted to try people for murder without going through a grand-jury proceeding, why should it not have that right? Who was to say that due process could not take on a new definition from the one that English citizens hadenjoyed for hundreds of years?
From Justice Harlan's mouth to the Warren Court's ears
The lone dissenter to the Court's majority ruling was Justice Harlan. In hisview, if the right to a grand jury had not been a "fundamental" component ofdue 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 Amendments of the Constitution . . . " Harlan, as a minority of one, did not prevail. Instead, the majority decision meant that the Court spent much of the next few decades hammering out its notions of due process, by means of ruling on various cases.
In 1953, Earl Warren became the Supreme Court chief justice. Under his leadership, virtually every right guaranteed by both the Fifth and the Sixth Amendments was incorporated into the legal understanding of due process: the rightto counsel, the right against self-incrimination, the right of the accused toconfront his or her accuser, the right to a speedy trial, the right to trialby jury, and the right to protection against double jeopardy (being tried orpunished twice for the same crime).
Many legal commentators saw the decisions of the Warren Court as a departurefrom the Court's previous cautious approach to establishing rights. However,some commentators have had the opposite reaction. They see the so-called activism of the Warren Court as returning to the traditional understanding of rights, the one that existed before Hurtado. In that view, Hurtadowas the departure, the case in which, for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court ignored the traditional English common law provisions spelled out in theBill of Rights in favor of the possibilities of "progress and improvement."
Related Cases
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
- Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
Is There Such a Thing as Justifiable Homicide?
The idea of "justifiable homicide," in legal terms, is usually considered interms 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 bythe king.
There are instances where homicide is clearly justified in self-defense, butthe legal system takes great care regarding three issues: was the determination on the part of the accused that killing was necessary to defend himself a"reasonable" decision? Was the attack "imminent," therefore justifying an actof self-defense? And did he use a level of force necessary in repelling theattacker, or was it excessive?
On some levels, it is easy, when confronted with the situation of a woman whokills her rapist or a man who shoots a home invader, to automatically agreewith the self-defense plea. However, American justice attempts to take account of other contingencies. One of these is a concern regarding vigilantism: when Charles Bronson in the Death Wish movies goes out and looks for muggers to rob him, so that he can shoot them, this may feel justified--but it is legally indefensible.
Sources
Kadish, Sanford H., ed. Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice. New York: Free Press, 1983.
User Comments Add a comment…