United States v. Hayman
342 U.S. 205 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for a federal prisoner to challenge their sentence by motion in the sentencing court is an adequate and effective substitute for the writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, it does not constitute an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.
Facts:
- In 1947, Hayman was convicted for forging Government checks.
- A principal witness against Hayman, Juanita Jackson, was a defendant in a related case.
- Hayman alleged that the same lawyer represented both him and Jackson during their respective proceedings.
- Hayman claimed he was unaware of this dual representation, which created a potential conflict of interest, until after his trial concluded.
- Jackson testified against Hayman after entering a plea of guilty but before she herself had been sentenced, creating a situation where her testimony could have been influenced by a desire for leniency.
Procedural Posture:
- Hayman, a federal prisoner, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the sentencing court) to vacate his sentence.
- The District Court conducted an ex parte investigation without Hayman's presence and denied the motion.
- Hayman appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals held that the § 2255 remedy was inadequate and that the statute amounted to an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus as applied to Hayman.
- The Court of Appeals ordered Hayman's § 2255 motion to be dismissed, allowing him to seek a writ of habeas corpus in the district of his confinement.
- The United States petitioned for, and the Supreme Court granted, a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
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 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which requires a federal prisoner to challenge their sentence by motion in the sentencing court before seeking a writ of habeas corpus, constitute an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
No, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not constitute an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The statute was enacted to address the practical difficulties of habeas corpus proceedings, not to curtail prisoners' rights, by providing a remedy intended to be as broad as habeas corpus but in the more convenient forum of the sentencing court. The lower court's error was not a failure of the statute, but a failure to apply it correctly; when a motion raises substantial issues of fact regarding events in which the prisoner participated, a hearing must be held with the prisoner present. Sentencing courts have the authority, auxiliary to their jurisdiction under § 2255 and through the All Writs Act, to issue orders to produce a prisoner from another district for such a hearing. Because the statutory procedure, when properly followed, is adequate and effective to test the legality of detention, it does not violate the Suspension Clause.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas
These justices concurred in the result without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision validates 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as the primary procedural vehicle for federal prisoners to collaterally attack their sentences, effectively replacing traditional habeas corpus petitions for most such claims. It establishes that Congress can constitutionally alter the procedures for post-conviction relief as long as the alternative remedy is as broad and effective as the writ of habeas corpus. By centralizing these challenges in the original sentencing court, the ruling streamlined federal post-conviction litigation and affirmed that procedural efficiency is a valid legislative goal, provided substantive rights are preserved. The case also clarifies that a prisoner has a right to be present for hearings on factual matters in which they were personally involved, ensuring that the § 2255 motion is not a hollow procedural exercise.
