Blyew v. United States
20 L. Ed. 638, 80 U.S. 581, 13 Wall. 581 (1871)
Rule of Law:
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a criminal prosecution is a cause "affecting" only the formal parties to the case (the government and the defendant), not witnesses or the victim of the crime.
Facts:
- John Blyew and George Kennard, two white men, murdered Lucy Armstrong, a Black woman, in Kentucky.
- Richard Foster and Laura Foster, two Black citizens, were witnesses to the murder.
- A Kentucky state statute was in effect that prohibited Black citizens from testifying in court against white persons.
- As a result of the Kentucky statute, Richard and Laura Foster were legally incompetent to give evidence against Blyew and Kennard in a Kentucky state court.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted John Blyew and George Kennard for murder in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky, a federal trial court.
- The indictment asserted that federal jurisdiction was proper under the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
- The basis for federal jurisdiction was the allegation that the Black victim and the Black witnesses to the murder were denied the right to testify in Kentucky state courts due to their race.
- The case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court on the question of whether the federal Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Civil Rights Act of 1866 grant federal courts jurisdiction over a state murder prosecution on the grounds that it is a cause "affecting" the Black victim and key Black witnesses who are barred from testifying in state court because of their race?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Strong
No. A state criminal prosecution does not "affect" witnesses or the victim within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and therefore the Act does not confer federal jurisdiction in such a case. The only parties legally affected by a criminal prosecution are the government and the persons indicted, as they are the only ones who can be reached by a judgment. Witnesses are not parties and have no personal, relative, or property rights at stake in the outcome. To hold that any person who could be a witness is "affected" by the cause would grant federal courts jurisdiction over nearly all state cases, a result Congress did not intend. The deceased victim, Lucy Armstrong, cannot be affected by the cause as the Act refers to persons in existence. This interpretation is supported by precedent in United States v. Ortega, which held that a criminal case for an assault on a foreign minister was not a case "affecting" the minister because he was not a party to the prosecution.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Bradley
Yes. A state criminal prosecution for a crime committed against a Black person is a cause "affecting" them, especially when state law denies them and other Black citizens the right to testify, thereby triggering federal jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The majority's interpretation is overly technical and defeats the broad remedial purpose of the Act, which was to secure equal rights and protection for newly freed slaves. The right to give evidence and seek justice for criminal attacks is a fundamental right, and denying it to an entire class of people is a "badge of slavery" that leaves them unprotected by the law. A prosecution for a person's murder profoundly affects them, as the purpose of the law is to protect their life through the deterrent effect of punishment; this protection should not cease at death. The case affects not just the victim, but the entire class of persons who are denied legal protection by the discriminatory state law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the jurisdictional reach of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, limiting its effectiveness as a tool to combat discriminatory state judicial practices. By adopting a strict, formalistic definition of who is "affected" by a case, the Supreme Court prevented federal intervention in state criminal proceedings where Black victims and witnesses were denied the fundamental right to testify. This ruling reinforced the traditional boundaries of federalism and signaled a judicial reluctance to permit broad federal oversight of state justice systems, ultimately placing the burden on Congress to enact more explicit legislation to protect the civil rights of Black citizens.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Blyew v. United States (1871)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"