|
|
Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 (1976)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 (1976)
Francis v. Henderson No. 74-5808 Argued December 9-10, 1975 Decided May 3, 1976 425 U.S. 536
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Six years after his conviction for felony murder from which he took no appeal, petitioner sought collateral relief from the state court on the ground, inter alia, that Negroes had been excluded from the grand jury that indicted him. Relief was denied on the ground that petitioner’s failure to raise the claim before trial constituted a waiver of that claim under state law. Petitioner then sought habeas corpus in the District Court, which granted relief. The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, which held that a federal prisoner who had failed to timely challenge the allegedly unconstitutional composition of the grand jury that indicted him could not, after his conviction, attack the grand jury’s composition in an action for federal collateral relief.
Held: The Court of Appeals correctly held that the Davis rule, which requires not only a showing of "cause" for the defendant’s failure to challenge the composition of the grand jury before trial, but also a showing of actual prejudice, applies with equal force when a federal court is asked in a habeas corpus proceeding to overturn a state court conviction because of an allegedly unconstitutional grand jury indictment. The Louisiana time limitation was designed to serve the same important purposes of sound judicial administration as were stressed in Davis, supra at 241, and considerations of comity and federalism require that those purposes be accorded no less recognition when a federal court is asked to overturn a state conviction than when it is asked to overturn a federal conviction because of an allegedly unconstitutional grand jury indictment. Pp. 538-542.
496 F.2d 896, affirmed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 542. MARSHALL, J., took no part in the decision of the case. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 (1976) in 425 U.S. 536 425 U.S. 537. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IE99A4RREYDE2UM.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 (1976), in 425 U.S. 536, page 425 U.S. 537. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IE99A4RREYDE2UM.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 (1976). cited in 1976, 425 U.S. 536, pp.425 U.S. 537. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IE99A4RREYDE2UM.
|