Hurtado v. California
110 U.S. 516 (1884)
Rule of Law:
The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not incorporate the Fifth Amendment's specific requirement for a grand jury indictment in felony cases against the states. A state criminal proceeding initiated by a prosecutor's information rather than a grand jury indictment does not violate due process, provided it adheres to fundamental principles of liberty and justice and ensures a fair trial.
Facts:
- The Constitution of California provided for criminal proceedings to be initiated by a prosecutor's information, following an examination and commitment by a magistrate.
- Joseph Hurtado was accused of committing murder in Sacramento County, California.
- A preliminary hearing was held before a magistrate, who determined there was probable cause to hold Hurtado for trial.
- Following the magistrate's finding, the district attorney filed a formal accusation, known as an 'information,' charging Hurtado with murder.
- Hurtado was not indicted by a grand jury, which is the process required for federal felony prosecutions under the Fifth Amendment.
Procedural Posture:
- The district attorney for Sacramento County, California, filed an information in a state trial court charging Joseph Hurtado with murder.
- Hurtado was tried, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death by the trial court.
- Hurtado appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of California, arguing that prosecution by information violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- Hurtado petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of error to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of California.
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 Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibit a state from prosecuting a defendant for a capital crime based on a prosecutor's information, rather than a grand jury indictment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Matthews
No. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not prohibit a state from using a prosecutor's information to initiate a capital prosecution. The phrase 'due process of law' does not require any particular mode of procedure but rather protects fundamental principles of liberty and justice. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment contains both a specific Grand Jury Clause and a separate Due Process Clause, indicating that the framers did not consider the grand jury to be an essential component of due process itself. If they had, the specific mention of the grand jury would be superfluous. Therefore, when the Fourteenth Amendment applied the 'due process' requirement to the states, it did not carry with it the separate grand jury guarantee. States are free to adopt their own procedures, such as the information system used in California, so long as those procedures do not violate fundamental principles of justice and provide for a fair trial with notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits a state from prosecuting a capital crime without a grand jury indictment. 'Due process of law' is synonymous with the 'law of the land' from Magna Charta, which, according to settled English common law, required a grand jury indictment for capital offenses as a fundamental protection against oppressive prosecution. The test for due process should be the settled usages and modes of proceeding that existed at common law when the Constitution was framed. The majority’s argument that the Fifth Amendment’s structure separates the grand jury from due process is flawed; the specific enumerations in the Bill of Rights are simply reinforcements of rights already considered fundamental to due process. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, nearly every state constitution required a grand jury for capital crimes, demonstrating a universal understanding of it as a fundamental principle of liberty and justice that should be binding on the states.
Analysis:
This landmark case established the principle of selective incorporation, rejecting the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment made the entire Bill of Rights applicable to the states. The Court's decision meant that 'due process' protects only those rights deemed 'fundamental' to liberty and justice, a determination to be made on a case-by-case basis. While most other provisions of the Bill of Rights have since been incorporated, Hurtado's holding remains significant because the Fifth Amendment's right to a grand jury indictment is one of the few protections that has not been incorporated against the states.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hurtado v. California (1884)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"