Moore v. Dempsey
43 S.Ct. 265, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2529, 261 U.S. 86 (1923)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal trial in a state court that is dominated by a mob, rendering the proceedings a mere pretense and depriving the defendant of a fair trial, constitutes a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, allowing for federal court review via a writ of habeas corpus.
Facts:
- On September 30, 1919, a group of Black sharecroppers meeting in a church in Phillips County, Arkansas, were attacked and fired upon by a group of white men, resulting in the death of a white man.
- The incident ignited widespread racial violence, during which numerous Black people were hunted down and killed.
- On October 1, 1919, another white man, Clinton Lee, was killed.
- Five Black men, the petitioners, were arrested for Lee's murder.
- A large mob gathered at the jail intending to lynch the petitioners.
- To prevent the lynching, a 'Committee of Seven' and other local leaders promised the mob that if they dispersed, the accused would be swiftly convicted and executed through the legal system.
- It was alleged that key witnesses who testified against the petitioners had been whipped and tortured until they agreed to provide the desired testimony.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioners were indicted for murder by a grand jury in Phillips County, Arkansas, on October 29, 1919.
- Following a trial in the state Circuit Court, a jury convicted the petitioners of first-degree murder on November 3, 1919, and they were sentenced to death.
- The trial court overruled the petitioners' motion for a new trial, which alleged mob domination and lack of a fair trial.
- The petitioners appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which affirmed their convictions.
- The petitioners then sought a writ of habeas corpus from a state Chancellor, who issued the writ, but the Arkansas Supreme Court held the Chancellor lacked jurisdiction.
- The petitioners filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
- The District Court dismissed the writ upon a demurrer, finding the allegations legally insufficient to warrant relief.
- The petitioners, appellants in this action, appealed the District Court's dismissal 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 criminal trial dominated by a mob, which effectively renders the proceedings a sham and results in a conviction, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus permitting a federal court to review the conviction via habeas corpus even if the state's formal corrective processes have been followed?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
Yes. A state trial dominated by a mob violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and allows for federal habeas review. If a state proceeding is merely a 'mask' for mob justice, where the counsel, jury, and judge are swept to a fatal conclusion by an 'irresistible wave of public passion,' it is not a trial in any constitutional sense. While federal courts should generally defer to state corrective processes, that deference ends when the state courts fail to correct the wrong. In such circumstances, a federal judge has a duty to examine the facts to determine if the trial was void and to secure the petitioners' constitutional rights, regardless of the formal perfection of the state's legal machinery.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice McReynolds
No. Federal courts should not intervene when a state has provided a corrective process, such as a trial and an appeal, which were utilized in this case. Relying on the precedent in Frank v. Mangum, the dissent argues that the state courts of Arkansas fully considered and rejected the petitioners' claims of mob domination and an unfair trial. To allow federal courts to re-examine these facts based on ex parte affidavits would undermine the finality of state court judgments, encourage endless litigation, and contribute to the 'national scandal' of delays in the enforcement of criminal law. The proper course is to respect the adjudications of the state courts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the scope of federal habeas corpus review of state convictions, marking a crucial shift away from the deference shown in Frank v. Mangum. While Frank suggested federal courts should defer as long as a state provided some 'corrective process,' Moore established that federal courts have an independent duty to assess the facts if that process was inadequate or failed to remedy a constitutional violation like mob domination. This empowered federal courts to act as a more robust safeguard for defendants' due process rights, particularly in cases involving intense public pressure and racial prejudice. It paved the way for the federal judiciary to play a larger role in overseeing the administration of criminal justice in the states.
