In Re Wilson
140 U.S. 575, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2486, 11 S. Ct. 870 (1891)
Rule of Law:
Territorial courts retain jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian reservations by non-Indians against non-Indians, and procedural defects in grand jury composition are not jurisdictional errors that can be raised on collateral attack via habeas corpus.
Facts:
- The petitioner, a United States citizen of African descent, killed William Fleming, who was also of African descent.
- The killing occurred within the boundaries of the White Mountain Indian Reservation.
- The reservation was located within the Second Judicial District of the Territory of Arizona.
- A grand jury composed of 15 persons investigated the crime.
- The grand jury issued an indictment charging the petitioner with murder.
- A territorial law passed shortly before the crime allegedly increased the required number of grand jurors to a minimum of 17.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner was indicted for murder in the District Court of the Second Judicial District of the Territory of Arizona, sitting as a U.S. court.
- The petitioner challenged the grand jury on grounds unrelated to their number, which the trial court overruled.
- The petitioner was tried, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death by the District Court.
- The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus directly with the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking discharge from custody.
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 territorial court sitting as a United States court have jurisdiction over a murder committed by a non-Indian on an Indian reservation, and does a potential statutory defect in the number of grand jurors render the subsequent conviction void upon a petition for habeas corpus?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brewer
Yes, the territorial court possessed valid jurisdiction, and the alleged defect in the grand jury composition does not void the judgment. The Court reasoned that while the federal government has authority over Indian reservations, this jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive. Prior to the Major Crimes Act of 1885, territorial courts had jurisdiction over offenses committed by non-Indians on reservations. The Act of 1885 extended federal jurisdiction over Indians for specific crimes but did not strip territorial courts of their existing jurisdiction over non-Indians. Regarding the grand jury, the Court held that even if the law required 17 jurors and only 15 were present, this was a procedural error, not a jurisdictional failure. Since 12 jurors are sufficient to find an indictment, the rights of the accused were not substantially prejudiced. Furthermore, habeas corpus is a collateral attack limited to reviewing whether a judgment is a complete nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. Procedural errors that could have been corrected on direct appeal cannot be raised in habeas corpus proceedings after the petitioner has waived the objection by going to trial.
Analysis:
This case is a significant precedent regarding the scope of federal habeas corpus review and the jurisdictional status of Indian reservations within U.S. territories. It establishes a high bar for collateral attacks on criminal convictions, distinguishing clearly between 'void' judgments (where the court lacked jurisdiction) and 'voidable' judgments (where the court erred in procedure). By denying relief for the grand jury defect, the Court reinforced the principle of finality in criminal proceedings, requiring defendants to raise procedural objections at trial or on direct appeal. Additionally, the decision clarifies that federal jurisdiction over Indian country is not exclusive of territorial jurisdiction regarding crimes involving non-Indians, a principle that continues to influence modern jurisdiction in Indian Country.
