McKane v. Durston
1894 U.S. LEXIS 2213, 153 U.S. 684, 14 S. Ct. 913 (1894)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's denial of bail to a convicted defendant pending an appeal of that conviction does not violate the U.S. Constitution, as a post-conviction appeal is not a matter of absolute right but a privilege that a state may grant or deny at its discretion.
Facts:
- John Y. McKane was indicted in New York for violating state election laws.
- Following a trial, a jury found McKane guilty.
- The court sentenced McKane to a six-year term of hard labor in Sing Sing prison.
- McKane appealed his conviction to a higher state court.
- Under New York law, a sentence is not stayed pending appeal unless a judge files a certificate of 'reasonable doubt,' which McKane failed to obtain.
- Consequently, McKane was imprisoned to begin serving his sentence while his state appeal was still pending.
Procedural Posture:
- John Y. McKane was convicted of violating state election laws in a New York trial court.
- The court sentenced him to six years in prison, and he was immediately incarcerated.
- McKane appealed his conviction to the General Term of the Supreme Court of New York (an intermediate appellate court).
- While his state appeal was pending, McKane filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming his imprisonment violated the U.S. Constitution.
- The U.S. Circuit Court denied his petition.
- McKane (appellant) appealed the Circuit Court's denial of his habeas corpus petition 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 law that denies a convicted defendant bail pending appeal, unless a judge certifies a reasonable doubt about the conviction, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Harlan
No. A state law conditioning bail pending appeal on a judicial certificate of reasonable doubt does not violate the U.S. Constitution because the right to appeal a criminal conviction is not a fundamental right guaranteed by due process, but rather a statutory privilege that a state may condition as it sees fit. The court reasoned that since an appeal itself is not a necessary element of due process of law, a state is free to determine whether to allow an appeal and under what circumstances. Furthermore, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV does not require one state to adopt the appellate or bail procedures of another; each state is entitled to establish its own.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the procedural protections of the federal Constitution do not extend to creating a right of appeal in state criminal cases. It affirms a strong sense of federalism, granting states broad autonomy to design, limit, or condition their own systems of appellate review. The ruling clarifies that if a state can withhold the right to appeal entirely without violating due process, it logically follows that it can place significant restrictions, such as denying bail, on any appeal it chooses to provide. This precedent ensures that federal courts will not interfere with state-level decisions about post-conviction procedure absent a violation of a more fundamental right.
