Original habeas Criminal law in the Waite Court

federal confinement

the waite court heard twenty-four original habeas petitions in criminal matters. many of these rulings held original habeas jurisdiction did not extend type of case presented. general rule, articulated in several cases, there no post-conviction original habeas jurisdiction unless court below totally without jurisdiction (for example, if criminal statute unconstitutional).

thus, in several cases, court found alleged error insubstantial consider via original habeas. in ex parte parks (1876), court held had no original habeas jurisdiction free defendant convicted in united states district court, though no appeal possible district court circuit court, , though petitioner alleged district court had been entirely without jurisdiction try offense charged. similarly, in ex parte rowland (1881), court held had no original habeas jurisdiction examine contempt of court conviction arising disregard of writ of mandamus. and, in ex parte bigelow (1885), court held there no review of double jeopardy determination of supreme court of district of columbia. in ex parte harding (1887), court held composition of grand jury (i.e. whether alien sat) not reviewed.

but, in several cases, court did find original habeas jurisdiction , reached merits. in ex parte karstendick (1876), court held federal court had no statutory authority sentence defendant hard labor @ state prison outside of territorial jurisdiction. in ex parte jackson (1877), court considered several constitutional issues, including postal power, application of first amendment mail-order gambling, , application of fourth amendment s warrant requirement mail. in ex parte lothrop (1886), court found arizona territorial courts constituted. in in re sawyer (1888), court granted writ state judges imprisoned federal judge violating injunction.

in ex parte clarke (1879), court held habeas petition filed single justice referred entire court.

state confinement

in ex parte royall (1886), first time, court petitioned grant original writ of habeas corpus prisoner in state custody. court held that, assuming had such power, should not exercised except in special circumstances:

it sufficient if court has power, under existing legislation, , upon habeas corpus, discharge petitioner, in custody under process of state court of original jurisdiction, trial on indictment charging him offense against laws of state,-upon not necessary express opinion,-such power ought not, reasons given in other cases decided, exercised in advance of trial.

in ex parte fonda (1886), court denied leave file original habeas petition, citing royall. in ex parte ayers (1887), court denied state-prisoner petition on merits, finding state tax law did not violate contracts clause.