Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Holding
The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies does not bar resort to federal habeas corpus if the petitioner has obtained a decision on his constitutional claims from the highest court of a State, even though that court could have based its decision on another ground.
Irvin v. Dowd was one of the first of many cases to underscore the "swing vote" role played by Justice Potter Stewart, who recently had come to the Supreme Court and was caught between the two warring camps of justices—the liberal camp of Justices Earl Warren and William Brennan, and the conservative one headed by Justice Felix Frankfurter.[2]
The Irvin case centered on a series of murders in Evansville, Indiana, from 1954 to early 1955.[3] In April 1955, local police arrested Leslie Irvin, announcing he had confessed to the crimes.[3] Irvin's lawyers sought a change of venue for the case to avoid local biases, but they lost; a third of the jury was seated despite statements showing they had prejudged the defendant to be guilty.[3] Irvin was sentenced to death in January 1956; he soon escaped from jail, leaving a note maintaining his innocence and alleging police misconduct and public prejudging of his case, as well as asking his lawyer to appeal.[4] Irvin was soon recaptured, and the Indiana Supreme Court would reject his motions for appeals.[5]
Irvin's lawyer came to the Supreme Court asking for a writ of habeas corpus.[5]
Legal issues
The case came to the Supreme Court to decide the question of whether Irvin's escaping from custody forfeited his right to appeal.[5] Beyond that, the justices on the court prone to judicial restraint (Frankfurter, Harlan, Clark, and Whittaker) were usually not supportive of the idea of a federal court issuing a writ of habeas corpus in a state prosecution case.[5] Brennan and Warren were concerned with the jurors who were allowed to sit on the case despite having prejudged the outcome.[5]
Justice Stewart at first felt that court precedent, especially the case of Brown v. Allen, precluded the Supreme Court from getting involved in the state prosecution.[6] Brennan managed to distinguish the Brown case and convinced Stewart to vote with him, bringing about a 5-4 majority for the liberals.[6] Brennan wrote an opinion forcing the state of Indiana to consider Irvin's appeal on the basis of the jury issue; he did not reach the matter of Irvin's escape.[6]
Outcome
Justice Brennan wrote an opinion holding that Irvin's exhaustion of state remedies did not bar a federal court's granting habeas corpus.[1] Stewart issued a one-line concurrence distinguishing the case from Brown v. Allen.[1]
The four judges in the minority, Frankfurter's bloc, saw the case as an example of the Court overreaching.[6] Frankfurter resented the interposition of federal court review over state criminal actions.[6]
Aftermath
Though Justice Brennan had begun his Supreme Court career voting with Justice Frankfurter about half the time, the Irvin case marked the end of a meaningful relationship between the two justices.[7] Frankfurter convinced a distinguished Harvard Law professor, Henry M. Hart, Jr., to focus on the case in the law school's Harvard Law Review as a means of character-assassinating Justice Brennan.[8][9]
Despite ideological divides, when the case came back to the Supreme Court nearly two years later, the Court managed to write a unanimous opinion again remanding the case to state court, due to the original trial depriving Irvin of Fourteenth Amendment due process.[10] Justice Clark's majority opinion underscored the need for impartiality in the jury: "In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, 'indifferent' jurors."[10][11]
Justice Frankfurter wrote a concurrence on the media and its coverage's way of preventing jurors from delivering impartial verdicts.[10]
^Eisler, Kim Isaac (1993), A Justice for All: William J. Brennan, Jr., and the decisions that transformed America, New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 159, ISBN978-0-671-76787-7
^Hart, Henry M., Jr. (1959), "The Supreme Court, 1958 Term", Harvard Law Review, 73 (1): 84–240, doi:10.2307/1337947, JSTOR 1337947
^ abc"Irvin v. Dowd - 366 U.S. 717 (1961)". Supreme.justia.com. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
^Acker, James R.; Brody, David C. (2004), Criminal Procedure (2nd ed.), Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, p. 528, ISBN978-0-7637-3169-4
External links
Text of Irvin v. Dowd, 359U.S. 394 (1959) is available from:JustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
January 05, 2023
irvin, dowd, 1959, united, states, supreme, court, case, involved, escaped, convict, leslie, irvin, denial, appeal, convict, sought, federal, writ, habeas, corpus, supreme, court, united, statesargued, january, 1959decided, 1959full, case, nameleslie, irvin, p. Irvin v Dowd 359 U S 394 1959 was a United States Supreme Court case 1 It involved an escaped convict s Leslie Irvin denial of appeal The convict sought a federal writ of habeas corpus Irvin v DowdSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued January 15 1959Decided May 4 1959Full case nameLeslie Irvin Petitioner v Alfred F Dowd Warden of the Indiana State PrisonCitations359 U S 394 more 79 S Ct 825 3 L Ed 2d 900Case historyPriorCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitHoldingThe doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies does not bar resort to federal habeas corpus if the petitioner has obtained a decision on his constitutional claims from the highest court of a State even though that court could have based its decision on another ground Court membershipChief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black Felix FrankfurterWilliam O Douglas Tom C ClarkJohn M Harlan II William J Brennan Jr Charles E Whittaker Potter StewartCase opinionsMajorityBrennan joined by Warren Black Douglas StewartConcurrenceStewartDissentFrankfurterDissentHarlan joined by Frankfurter Clark WhittakerLaws applied28 U S C 2254Irvin v Dowd was one of the first of many cases to underscore the swing vote role played by Justice Potter Stewart who recently had come to the Supreme Court and was caught between the two warring camps of justices the liberal camp of Justices Earl Warren and William Brennan and the conservative one headed by Justice Felix Frankfurter 2 Contents 1 Factual background 2 Legal issues 3 Outcome 4 Aftermath 5 References 6 External linksFactual background EditThe Irvin case centered on a series of murders in Evansville Indiana from 1954 to early 1955 3 In April 1955 local police arrested Leslie Irvin announcing he had confessed to the crimes 3 Irvin s lawyers sought a change of venue for the case to avoid local biases but they lost a third of the jury was seated despite statements showing they had prejudged the defendant to be guilty 3 Irvin was sentenced to death in January 1956 he soon escaped from jail leaving a note maintaining his innocence and alleging police misconduct and public prejudging of his case as well as asking his lawyer to appeal 4 Irvin was soon recaptured and the Indiana Supreme Court would reject his motions for appeals 5 Irvin s lawyer came to the Supreme Court asking for a writ of habeas corpus 5 Legal issues EditThe case came to the Supreme Court to decide the question of whether Irvin s escaping from custody forfeited his right to appeal 5 Beyond that the justices on the court prone to judicial restraint Frankfurter Harlan Clark and Whittaker were usually not supportive of the idea of a federal court issuing a writ of habeas corpus in a state prosecution case 5 Brennan and Warren were concerned with the jurors who were allowed to sit on the case despite having prejudged the outcome 5 Justice Stewart at first felt that court precedent especially the case of Brown v Allen precluded the Supreme Court from getting involved in the state prosecution 6 Brennan managed to distinguish the Brown case and convinced Stewart to vote with him bringing about a 5 4 majority for the liberals 6 Brennan wrote an opinion forcing the state of Indiana to consider Irvin s appeal on the basis of the jury issue he did not reach the matter of Irvin s escape 6 Outcome EditJustice Brennan wrote an opinion holding that Irvin s exhaustion of state remedies did not bar a federal court s granting habeas corpus 1 Stewart issued a one line concurrence distinguishing the case from Brown v Allen 1 The four judges in the minority Frankfurter s bloc saw the case as an example of the Court overreaching 6 Frankfurter resented the interposition of federal court review over state criminal actions 6 Aftermath EditThough Justice Brennan had begun his Supreme Court career voting with Justice Frankfurter about half the time the Irvin case marked the end of a meaningful relationship between the two justices 7 Frankfurter convinced a distinguished Harvard Law professor Henry M Hart Jr to focus on the case in the law school s Harvard Law Review as a means of character assassinating Justice Brennan 8 9 Despite ideological divides when the case came back to the Supreme Court nearly two years later the Court managed to write a unanimous opinion again remanding the case to state court due to the original trial depriving Irvin of Fourteenth Amendment due process 10 Justice Clark s majority opinion underscored the need for impartiality in the jury In essence the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial indifferent jurors 10 11 Justice Frankfurter wrote a concurrence on the media and its coverage s way of preventing jurors from delivering impartial verdicts 10 References Edit a b c Irvin v Dowd 359 U S 394 1959 Eisler Kim Isaac 1993 A Justice for All William J Brennan Jr and the decisions that transformed America New York Simon amp Schuster p 159 ISBN 978 0 671 76787 7 a b c Eisler 1993 p 159 Eisler 1993 pp 159 160 a b c d e Eisler 1993 p 160 a b c d e Eisler 1993 p 161 Eisler 1993 pp 160 161 164 Eisler 1993 pp 162 164 Hart Henry M Jr 1959 The Supreme Court 1958 Term Harvard Law Review 73 1 84 240 doi 10 2307 1337947 JSTOR 1337947 a b c Irvin v Dowd 366 U S 717 1961 Supreme justia com Retrieved June 27 2013 Acker James R Brody David C 2004 Criminal Procedure 2nd ed Sudbury MA Jones and Bartlett p 528 ISBN 978 0 7637 3169 4External links EditText of Irvin v Dowd 359 U S 394 1959 is available from Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Irvin v Dowd amp oldid 1033979766, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
