Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963), was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment.[1] Prior to this, starting with Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 U.S. 475 (1866),[2] the court had maintained a "hands off" policy regarding federal interference with state incarceration policies and practices, maintaining that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.[3] Subsequently, in Cooper v. Pate (1964),[4] an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ.
A state prisoner who has been placed on parole, under the "custody and control" of a parole board, is "in custody" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and, on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a Federal District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine his charge that his state sentence was imposed in violation of the Federal Constitution.
Gertmenian, Alfred (1963). "Criminal Procedure: The Custody Requirement for Habeas Corpus Relief in the Federal Courts". California Law Review. 51 (1): 228–232. doi:10.2307/3478912. JSTOR 3478912.
External linksedit
Text of Jones v. Cunningham, 371U.S. 236 (1963) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
jones, cunningham, 1963, supreme, court, case, which, court, first, ruled, that, state, inmates, right, file, writ, habeas, corpus, challenging, both, legality, conditions, their, imprisonment, prior, this, starting, with, pervear, massachusetts, 1866, court, . Jones v Cunningham 371 U S 236 1963 was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment 1 Prior to this starting with Pervear v Massachusetts 72 U S 475 1866 2 the court had maintained a hands off policy regarding federal interference with state incarceration policies and practices maintaining that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states 3 Subsequently in Cooper v Pate 1964 4 an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ Jones v CunninghamSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued December 3 1962Decided January 14 1963Full case nameJones v CunninghamCitations371 U S 236 more 83 S Ct 373 9 L Ed 2d 285 1963 U S LEXIS 2261Case historyPrior297 F 2d 851 4th Cir 1962 313 F 2d 347 4th Cir 1963 HoldingA state prisoner who has been placed on parole under the custody and control of a parole board is in custody within the meaning of 28 U S C 2241 and on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus a Federal District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine his charge that his state sentence was imposed in violation of the Federal Constitution Court membershipChief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black William O DouglasTom C Clark John M Harlan IIWilliam J Brennan Jr Potter StewartByron White Arthur GoldbergCase opinionMajorityBlack joined by unanimousLaws applied28 USC 2241 2255 habeas corpus This case overturned a previous ruling or rulingsPervear v Massachusetts 1867 Wikisource has original text related to this article Jones v CunninghamReferences edit Jones v Cunningham 371 U S 236 1963 Pervear v Massachusetts 72 U S 475 1866 Constitutional Topic The Bill of Rights U S Constitution Online Retrieved December 10 2007 Cooper v Pate 378 U S 546 1964 Further reading editGertmenian Alfred 1963 Criminal Procedure The Custody Requirement for Habeas Corpus Relief in the Federal Courts California Law Review 51 1 228 232 doi 10 2307 3478912 JSTOR 3478912 External links editText of Jones v Cunningham 371 U S 236 1963 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio nbsp This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Jones v Cunningham amp oldid 1175144338, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
