Frank v. Mangum
35 S. Ct. 582, 237 U.S. 309, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1338 (1915)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state provides a corrective process, such as an appellate review, to address a defendant's claims of federal constitutional violations at trial, the state's proceedings satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A federal court hearing a subsequent habeas corpus petition must consider the entire state process and should not overturn the state courts' findings of fact unless the corrective process itself was inadequate.
Facts:
- Leo Frank was tried for murder in Atlanta, Georgia, in a court environment characterized by intense public hostility.
- The courtroom was packed with spectators, and a large, hostile crowd gathered outside the courthouse throughout the trial.
- The public pressure was so significant that the trial judge expressed to Frank's counsel his fear of potential mob violence if there were an acquittal or a hung jury.
- The judge conferred with the city's Chief of Police and a military Colonel in the jury's presence regarding security and crowd control.
- At the judge's suggestion to ensure their safety, Frank and his counsel were absent from the courtroom when the jury returned its guilty verdict.
- Frank's counsel agreed to this arrangement, but Frank himself did not personally or knowingly consent to being absent.
- Upon the announcement of the guilty verdict, spectators inside the courtroom and the crowd outside erupted in loud applause and cheers.
Procedural Posture:
- Leo Frank was convicted of murder in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, a state trial court.
- Frank moved for a new trial, arguing that mob domination had deprived him of a fair trial; the motion was denied by the trial court.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia (the state's highest court) affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial, finding the allegations of mob domination to be without merit.
- Subsequently, Frank filed a motion in the trial court to set aside the verdict as a nullity because he was absent when it was rendered. This motion was also denied.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict, holding Frank had waived the issue by not raising it in his first motion for a new trial.
- After exhausting all state remedies, Frank filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- The District Court denied the petition on its face, and Frank appealed that denial to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 state's provision of a corrective appellate process, which reviews and rejects a defendant's claims of mob domination and other trial errors, satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby precluding federal habeas corpus relief based on those same claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Pitney
Yes, a state's provision of a corrective appellate process satisfies the Due Process Clause. Due process is not denied when a state provides a mechanism, like an appeal to its highest court, to fairly review and adjudicate claims of trial irregularities, and a federal court on habeas review must defer to the state court's determination of the facts. Federal habeas corpus is not a substitute for a writ of error to review trial mistakes; it is an inquiry into whether the state, through the entirety of its judicial process, has deprived the prisoner of liberty without due process of law. Here, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Frank's allegations of mob domination on a motion for a new trial and found them to be factually groundless. That finding, made by a competent state tribunal after a full hearing, must be considered conclusive in a federal collateral attack. Furthermore, Frank's absence at the rendering of the verdict was a procedural error that, under Georgia law, was waived when he failed to raise it in his initial motion for a new trial. A state's enforcement of such a reasonable procedural rule does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Holmes
No, a state's corrective appellate process does not satisfy the Due Process Clause if the underlying trial was fundamentally subverted by mob domination. Habeas corpus is designed to cut through procedural forms to examine the substance of the detention, and if a trial is merely an empty shell controlled by a mob, it is not due process of law. Mob law does not become due process by securing the assent of a terrorized jury. When a petitioner makes a credible allegation that the trial was a sham, a federal court has a duty to conduct its own factual inquiry and is not bound by the state court's findings. The allegations here—especially the trial judge's own admission of fear of violence—create an overwhelming presumption that the jury was intimidated by the mob. An appellate review of the record cannot cure a trial that was void from the start due to such fundamental corruption of the judicial process.
Analysis:
This case established the highly deferential "corrective process" doctrine for federal habeas review, significantly limiting state prisoners' access to federal courts for several decades. By holding that an available state appellate review could cure trial-level constitutional errors like mob domination, the Court prioritized principles of federalism and finality over federal oversight of state criminal justice. The powerful dissent by Justice Holmes, however, championed a more robust role for federal courts in protecting individual rights and laid the intellectual groundwork for later landmark cases, like Moore v. Dempsey (1923), which would begin to expand the scope of federal habeas corpus and empower federal judges to look behind state court records to determine if a trial was fundamentally fair.
