Burns v. Wilson
97 L. Ed. 2d 1508, 1953 U.S. LEXIS 1900, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a military decision has dealt fully and fairly with a service member's constitutional claims, it is not open to a federal civil court in a habeas corpus proceeding to grant the writ simply to re-evaluate the evidence.
Facts:
- Herman Dennis and Robert Burns, members of the U.S. Air Force, were stationed on the Island of Guam.
- They were accused of murder and rape.
- Following the crime, civil authorities took Dennis into custody on January 7, 1949, and held him incommunicado.
- Investigators questioned Dennis intermittently over a five-day period.
- On January 11, after being confronted with an alleged accomplice's confession, Herman Dennis confessed to the crimes.
- The petitioners alleged that military authorities later 'planted' incriminating evidence—a victim's smock with hairs from Dennis's body—in a truck they had driven.
- Petitioners also alleged that authorities coerced various witnesses to testify against them and denied them effective counsel of their choice.
- After the investigation by civil authorities, the petitioners were turned over to the Air Force for trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners were tried separately by Air Force courts-martial on Guam and found guilty of murder and rape.
- The courts-martial sentenced both petitioners to death.
- Petitioners exhausted all available remedies within the military justice system, and the President confirmed the sentences.
- Petitioners filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The District Court dismissed the petitions without an evidentiary hearing.
- Petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, but only after reviewing the trial records on the merits of the petitioners' allegations.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
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 a federal civil court have the power, in a habeas corpus proceeding, to conduct a de novo review of the evidence and facts underlying a military prisoner's constitutional claims when those claims have already been fully and fairly considered by the military justice system?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Vinson
No. When the military courts have fully and fairly considered a service member's claims, a federal court's function in a habeas corpus proceeding is limited to determining whether the military gave fair consideration to each claim, not to re-examine and re-weigh the evidence. Military law is a separate jurisprudence established by Congress, with its own comprehensive system for review and protection of rights. While civil courts retain jurisdiction over military habeas petitions, this does not mean they should disregard the military's prior, fair determinations. In this case, the military reviewing courts scrutinized the trial records and lengthy opinions concluded that petitioners' allegations of coerced confessions, denial of counsel, and fabricated evidence were unfounded, meaning they received full and fair consideration of their claims.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes. A federal court should conduct a hearing on the petitioners' constitutional claims because the military review was inadequate. The Fifth Amendment's prohibition on coerced confessions applies to military tribunals, and the undisputed facts—holding an accused incommunicado for five days with repetitious questioning—make a prima facie case that this constitutional rule was violated. The military reviewing agencies failed to appraise these facts in light of the Supreme Court's constitutional standards on coerced confessions. Federal courts are the ultimate formulators of these constitutional rules and must ensure they are properly applied by federal agencies like military tribunals, especially when the death penalty is involved.
Concurring - Justice Minton
No. The power of a federal civil court is even more limited than the majority suggests; its sole function is to determine whether the court-martial had jurisdiction over the person and the offense. Congress was granted distinct constitutional authority to create military courts, and civil courts have no supervisory power over them. If a military court with proper jurisdiction commits an error, that error must be corrected within the military's own appellate hierarchy, not by a federal civil court on habeas corpus.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'full and fair consideration' doctrine, which significantly curtails the scope of federal habeas corpus review for military court-martial convictions. By treating the military justice system as a parallel and competent legal system, akin to state courts, the Supreme Court created a standard of deference. This decision limits a military prisoner's ability to have their constitutional claims fully relitigated in an Article III court, provided the military's own internal review process has adequately addressed the issues. It solidifies the separation between the military and civil justice systems and sets a high bar for civilian court intervention.
