Queen v. Hepburn
11 U.S. 290, 3 L. Ed. 348, 7 Cranch 290 (1813)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible to establish a specific fact, such as an ancestor's free status, and no special exception to this rule exists for freedom suits even if eyewitnesses to the fact are deceased.
Facts:
- Mima Queen and her child were held in bondage by Hepburn.
- They initiated a suit claiming they were entitled to freedom.
- Their claim to freedom was based on their descent from an ancestor named Mary Queen.
- The plaintiffs alleged that Mary Queen was a free person who had been brought into the country and wrongfully held in servitude for a term of years, not for life.
- The events concerning Mary Queen's status occurred so long in the past that no living witnesses could testify from direct, personal knowledge.
Procedural Posture:
- The Plaintiffs, Mima Queen and her child, sued the Defendant, Hepburn, for their freedom in the Circuit Court of the United States for the County of Washington.
- At trial, the Plaintiffs offered depositions containing hearsay statements to prove that their ancestor was a free person.
- The Circuit Court refused to admit the hearsay evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, Hepburn.
- A final judgment was entered for the Defendant.
- The Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error, challenging the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
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 general rule of evidence excluding hearsay apply in a freedom suit to bar testimony about what a witness heard others say concerning the free status of the plaintiff's long-deceased ancestor?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, Ch. J.
No. The general rule that hearsay evidence is incompetent to establish any specific fact applies to freedom suits just as it does to other cases concerning property rights. The Court reasoned that while there are established exceptions to the hearsay rule for matters of pedigree, prescription, custom, and boundary, a claim to freedom based on a specific, long-past event does not fall within these exceptions. Chief Justice Marshall expressed a strong reluctance to create new exceptions, warning that doing so would undermine the stability of property rights by allowing claims to be supported by easily fabricated testimony. The court affirmed that the rules of evidence must be applied consistently across all types of cases, concluding that the fact that eyewitnesses are dead does not justify admitting hearsay to prove a specific fact.
Dissenting - Duvall, J.
Yes. Hearsay evidence should be admissible in freedom suits where the ancestor has been deceased for a great length of time. Justice Duvall argued that Maryland courts had long permitted such evidence on the same principle that allows it in cases of pedigree and boundary, namely, the antiquity of the transaction makes it impossible to procure living testimony. He contended that the right to freedom is more important than the right to property and that people of color, due to their 'helpless condition,' require such protection. Duvall warned that the majority's decision effectively 'cuts up by the roots' all such freedom claims, as oral history is often the only available evidence for enslaved persons.
Analysis:
This decision solidified a strict application of the hearsay rule in federal courts, significantly hindering the ability of enslaved people to win freedom suits. By refusing to create a special evidentiary exception, the Court treated claims for human freedom as legally equivalent to disputes over property, prioritizing formal procedural consistency over the unique equities of slavery. The ruling effectively invalidated oral history as a basis for freedom claims, which was often the only evidence available to illiterate and oppressed people, thereby entrenching the existing power structure. Justice Duvall's dissent highlights the profound substantive impact of this seemingly neutral procedural rule on the pursuit of justice for the enslaved.
Unlock the full brief for Queen v. Hepburn