Ex Parte Tobias Watkins
28 U.S. 193, 3 Pet. 193, 7 L. Ed. 650 (1830)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the merits of a criminal judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. If a court has general jurisdiction over the subject matter, its judgment, even if erroneous, is not a nullity and constitutes sufficient cause for imprisonment that cannot be overturned through a collateral habeas proceeding.
Facts:
- Tobias Watkins was criminally prosecuted in the circuit court of the United States for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia.
- The prosecution was based on an indictment charging Watkins with certain offenses.
- The circuit court rendered a judgment of conviction against Watkins.
- Pursuant to the court's judgment, Watkins was imprisoned.
- Watkins alleged that the acts described in the indictment did not constitute a criminal offense punishable by that court.
Procedural Posture:
- Tobias Watkins was indicted and tried in the circuit court of the United States for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, a court of first instance.
- The circuit court entered a judgment of conviction against Watkins, leading to his imprisonment.
- Watkins filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus directly with the Supreme Court of the United States.
- The petition alleged that the confinement was illegal because the indictment did not state a cognizable offense, rendering the circuit court's proceedings and judgment void.
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 court have the authority, through a writ of habeas corpus, to examine the sufficiency of an indictment and effectively reverse a criminal judgment from a court of general jurisdiction that is not otherwise subject to its appellate review?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Marshall
No. A federal court cannot use a writ of habeas corpus to second-guess the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The circuit court for the District of Columbia is a court of record with general jurisdiction over criminal cases. As such, it has the unquestionable power and duty to determine whether an offense charged in an indictment is legally punishable. This determination is itself an exercise of jurisdiction, and its final judgment is conclusive, regardless of whether it is for or against the prisoner. An imprisonment under a judgment cannot be unlawful unless that judgment is an absolute nullity, and a judgment is not a nullity if the court has general jurisdiction over the subject, even if its decision is erroneous. Because this Court lacks direct appellate jurisdiction to reverse the circuit court's judgment in this criminal case, it cannot usurp that power indirectly through the instrumentality of the writ of habeas corpus.
Analysis:
This case establishes a foundational principle limiting the scope of federal habeas corpus review, distinguishing between a judgment that is merely 'erroneous' and one that is void for lack of jurisdiction. By holding that habeas corpus is not a substitute for a direct appeal, the decision reinforces the finality of judgments from courts of competent jurisdiction. This precedent has been crucial in defining the boundaries between direct and collateral review, preventing federal courts from re-litigating the merits of convictions and preserving the hierarchical structure of the judiciary.
