Today in Supreme Court History: January 14, 1780

1/14/1780: Justice Henry Baldwin's birthday.

Justice Henry Baldwin

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (decided January 14, 1963): the leading "fruit of the poisonous tree" case, where statements made after unlawful entry as to drug sale were excluded, as well as heroin seized; but voluntary confession made when defendant went to police station several days later was admissible because the "taint" was sufficiently "attenuated" (facts too complicated to summarize here)

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161 (decided January 14, 2014): defendant can't automatically remove class action brought by State suing on behalf of its citizens (alleged illegal price-fixing as to LCD screens) because citizens are not specifically named; Class Action Fairness Act requires at least 100 named claimants

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (decided January 14, 2014): the Court here to everybody's surprise destroys traditional general (or "doing business in state") jurisdiction, departing from the International Shoe "fairness" standard and in effect striking down dozens of state jurisdictional statutes. It's now a violation of Due Process to sue a business anywhere except 1) its state of incorporation, 2) its main place of business, or 3) where the conduct sued upon happened. Here, former Argentina citizens alleged that Daimler (actually its subsidiary, Mercedes Benz, but the Court treats them as the same) delivered labor leaders up for torture by reporting them to the Argentina dictatorship. Sotomayor concurs as to lack of jurisdiction but on the grounds that there are obvious better forums, such as Germany (following the Court's standard reasoning in such situations since Asahi, 1987) and points out that the Court went beyond the arguments presented to it and its holding is a gift to big business. Opinion by Ginsburg.

Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (decided January 14, 2009): not a Sixth Amendment violation to have a judge (not a jury) find facts necessary to impose consecutive (instead of concurrent) sentences (here, finding that there were two incidents of burglary and sexual abuse of 11-year-old girl)

Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (decided January 14, 2009): evidence found during arrest was admissible even though warrant for the arrest had been recalled and the arresting officer due to a recordkeeping error had not been told about it

[Dilan Esper]

General jurisdiction was never "doing business in state" jurisdiction, at least under federal constitutional law, unless you want to go back pre-International Shoe or consider consent statutes (which are currently under consideration by the courts).

What Bauman addressed was that it used to be you could get general jurisdiction over a company for its "continuous and systematic" contacts with a jurisdiction. That was more than just doing business. But the problem was, what was it?

And what good did it really do? You could always sue a corporation in its state of incorporation or where it had its principal place of business, and you could ALSO sue them in any state where they had minimum contacts so long as the claim arose there. (That's specific jurisdiction.)

The type of claim the Bauman case barred is, say, an Alabama resident going to California and suing American Airlines, a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in Dallas, for a tort committed by an American Airlines employee at JFK airport. In that situation, there's no real justification for California hearing the case. And yet under the old, bad "continuous and systematic" test, a plaintiff could come to California and try to get favorable law applied to the cause of action even though the case had absolutely nothing to do with California.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’re in a car crash caused by faulty brakes in the other guy’s Ford. He bought it in another state. You have to go to Michigan (or the other state) to sue Ford, even though there’s a Ford dealership in every town in your state.

[Dilan Esper]

No you don't. See SCOTUS' recent case on that, which Reason isn't letting me link to.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Can you give me the cite?

[Dilan Esper]

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for bringing that case to my attention. It seems in conflict with Bauman. The Bauman court said that even given Mercedes Benz’s pervasive contacts in California, it wasn’t “at home” there (their new magic words). The Court admitted that its holding would be the same even though Mercedez Benz’s contacts in California were “sizable” and “even with MBUSA’s contacts [in California] attributed to it”. Bauman at 139.

In picking a products liability example, I was trying for an extreme example of how Bauman would be applied. I see now that (gasp) the Court can engage in results-oriented jurisprudence.

Thanks for the cite, though, and I’ll revise my summary of Bauman.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A lot of the time the cases you find are admittedly of limited significance (although they probably are better illustrations of Supreme Court history than John Locke’s bar mitzvah or whatever Prof. Blackman chooses). But Wong Sun really is one of the canonical constitutional criminal procedure cases, and the fact that it wasn’t the headline for today is pretty inexplicable (at least, if you’re in a charitable frame of mind).

[Mr. Bumble]

...amd in other SC news:

Supreme Court investigators have narrowed leak probe down to a small group of suspects

Linked article based on WSJ story.

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2023/01/13/supreme-court-investigators-have-narrowed-leak-probe-down-to-a-small-group-of-suspects-n523674

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Wow, what a nothing-burger that is. It doesn’t even show that the probe has indeed “narrowed down to a small group of suspects.” It only says that nobody knows, and trots out two theories which we all knew since last summer.

[Frank Drackman]

Well obviously, they should have hidden the Opinions in Senescent J's Garage. Wouldn't have been "Discovered" until November 2022.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Former Justice Baldwin seems to have been a mediocre-at-best fish in what became a nice pond.

Choosing this birthday to mark this date in Court history seems a good fit with Baldwin's shambling legacy.

[Frank Drackman]

Mediocre?
and yet he managed to make it to the Surpremes. Have you done anything in your entire Rev.olting "Career" that could be characterized as "Superior"??? You're to ashamed to even admit where you supposedly studied law (I'm guessing, like Ted Kennedy, you were thrown out of one School for (Redacted), "Withdrew" from another School for (Redacted) and finally managed to get through somewhere, probably East Dumb-Fuck Indiana School of Law and Diesel Mechanics, which explains your Ire at the "Klingers" (HT Barry Hussein) as the Diesel Mechanics spend more on their Bass Boats than you have in a 401K.
Jeezus, Rev.olting Sandusky, you'd barely make "Mediocre" on your best day,
Oh, and since you claim to own firearms, the long straight thing?? (you'd think Rev.Sandusky would be familiar with "Long straight things)
It's called a Barrell, point it away from you when you shoot (pull that little lever your index finger naturally goes to)

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Mediocre? and yet he managed to make it to the Surpremes.

He lived when one could become district attorney a year or so out of "law school," before his 20th birthday. When professional standards were largely yet to be developed. When opportunity was associated with unearned privilege as least as much as merit. He appears to have inherited (at least as much as earned) much of his life.

His circumstances seemed to have resembled those of someone who becomes governor of Arkansas, South Dakota, Montana, or another small, poorly educated, downscale state today -- lack of legitimate competition, as much as anything, positions the "winner."

[Frank Drackman]

Ooohhhh, that's a "Bingo"!!!! (HT Standartenführer Hans Landa )
seem to have hit one of the Rev.olting Rev.Sandusky's "nerves"
Yeah, those 18th Century Shysters (well, he practiced mostly in the 19th Century) were Stew-pid (and probably "Klingers") didn't have AlGores Internets, Know that Capital Punishment was Unconstitutional, and Homosexual Marriage/Abortion were,
Rev.Revolting, you just revealed so much about your Id, Ego, and Superego, I almost want to turn away, but like a really gnarly car crash, (or the Sleepy J. "Documents" sitch-u-asian") I can't keep but sneeking a peek,
So which Klinger Law School in Arkansas did you attend?

Guessing, https://obu.edu/

Frank "Arkansas?!?" you really are a "Klinger"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Considering the latest justice to the SCOTUS, we've come full circle on unearned privilege.

[not guilty]

Well, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson came to SCOTUS with stronger credentials than the Republican affirmative action nominees, Sandra Day O'Connor (brief service on state trial and intermediate appellate courts) and Clarence Thomas (brief service on U.S. Court of Appeals and as an assistant state attorney general).

[F.D. Wolf]

Baldwin, as circuit justice, presided over a trial that captivated the nation, that of Alexander William Holmes. United States v. Holmes, 26 F. Cas. 360 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383).

Holmes was a crewmember aboard the American ship William Brown that sailed from Liverpool bound for Philidelphia on March 13, 1841, with 17 crew and 65 passengers. At about 10 PM on April 19, some 250 miles from Newfoundland, the ship struck an iceberg and began to sink rapidly. Passengers scrambled madly for the lifeboats, of which there were two, a small cutter and a larger longboat. The cutter was occupied by Captain George L. Harris, eight crew, and one passenger. The longboat, built to accommodate 18, was occupied by 41: 32 passengers and the nine remaining members of the crew, including First Mate Rhodes and Seaman Holmes. 31 passengers went down with the ship.

The next morning, Capt. Harris, assessing the situation, decided the boats should separate, increasing the chances of rescue of at least one of them. Harris and Rhodes exchanged words in hushed tones, Rhodes impressing upon him the dire condition of the foundering, overloaded longboat. Harris told him, “You know what you will have to do. But let it be a last resort. Harris placed Rhodes in command of the longboat, and, with that, the boats separated.

That night, a wave filled the boat, and Rhodes realized the “last resort” was upon them. Rhodes was bailing water frantically. “This won’t do! Help me, God! We must lighten the boat, or we will all be lost!” He then barked at the crew to “Get to work!” As if knowing what he was ordering them to do, no one responded. Again came the order, and Holmes took charge. The first to go was a passenger named Riley, whom Holmes ordered to “Stand up!” Riley was seized by the crew and pitched over the side. Rhodes gave the crew two provisos: don’t separate man and wife and don’t throw any women overboard. Next to go was passenger Charles Conlin. One man asked for five minutes to pray, which he was granted before being cast into the sea. Passenger Frank Askin offered Holmes five sovereigns to spare him until morning, when, if God had not sent help, they would cast lots, and if the lot fell on him, he “would go over like a man”. Holmes only responded, “I don’t want your money, Frank.” Askin put up a struggle, but eventually went over the side. In all, 14 men and two women went into the water. (The two women, sisters, most probably weren’t thrown overboard, but cast themselves into the sea after the crew had thrown in their brother.) Finally, Rhodes called a halt, declaring that if any more were to die, they would all die together.

The next morning, Holmes was the first to spot a vessel. He warned the passengers to get down and be quiet, lest the ship, seeing so many would pretend it didn’t see them. He attached a woman’s shawl to a boathook and waved it frantically to signal the ship. They were rescued, and the ship put in in Canada, where the entire crew was arrested, but quickly released at the behest of the American and British consulates who insisted the crew had done nothing wrong. (The cutter had been rescued separately by a French vessel).

Eventually, some surviving passengers made it to Philidelphia, their original destination and swore out complaints against the crew. Holmes was the only one authorities were able to apprehend. A grand jury refuses to indict him for murder, returning an indictment for manslaughter instead, the maximum sentence for which was three years in prison and a $1000 fine.

At trial, the prosecution argued that Holmes and the crew had no right to sacrifice the passengers to save themselves, and, in fact, had a duty to take the hazards of the sea more upon themselves than the passengers. The defense argued that in such a situation as they found themselves, the conventional law must give way to the law of nature. “You sit here, the sworn twelve, . . . reposing amidst the comfort and delights of sacred homes . . . to decide upon the impulses and motives of the prisoner at bar, launched upon the bosom of the perilous ocean surrounded by a thousand deaths in their most hideous forms, with but one plank between him and destruction.”

The jury returned a verdict of guilty with a recommendation for mercy. Baldwin sentenced Holmes to six months and a $20 fine. Holmes would serve his six months, but a pardon from President Tyler would relieve him of the $20 fine. Holmes would return to the sea with his old crew and remain the only man tried in the matter.

The Holmes decision would be cited by the court in the notorious British case of R v. Dudley, (1884) 14 Q.B.D. 273. That case involved four mariners who were adrift at sea for three weeks in a lifeboat after their yacht sank. At that point, two of the crew, Dudley and Stephens, decided that to survive they had to kill and eat 17-year-old cabin boy Richard Parker who had fallen violently ill from drinking seawater. At trial, they were convicted and sentenced to death with a recommendation for mercy. The Court of Queen’s Bench, per Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, upheld the verdict, holding that necessity is no defense to murder, and the case is still frequently cited in common law jurisdictions for that proposition.

(Dudley and Stephen's death sentences were commuted to six months imprisonment.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Wow! Thanks.

I’m reminded of a TV movie I saw when I was in college that was gripping but not as gripping as that. (“The Last Survivors”, 1975 with Martin Sheen.)

P.S. I looked up that TV movie just now — it’s on youtube — and it says that was based on the Holmes case!

[Syd Henderson]

"At that point, two of the crew, Dudley and Stephens, decided that to survive they had to kill and eat 17-year-old cabin boy Richard Parker who had fallen violently ill from drinking seawater. "

This is one of the inspirations for "The Life of Pi."

[BrotherMovesOn]

Wow. Fun fact.

[John F. Carr]

Cannibalism is up there with rum, sodomy, and the lash in the list of naval traditions. See also Owen Coffin. And one might wonder if how many passengers in Alive were helped to their fate. History is written by the survivors.

[Mr. Bumble]

Only another 570+ comments for the Queens desire to be filled.

[Frank Drackman]

Doesn't look a day over 243!

[Mr. Bumble]

Seriously? Why would that be awesome?

[Dan Schiavetta]

This “attenuation” argument makes no sense. There was a direct connection and causation between the illegal arrests and Wong Sun’s decision to confess, even if he had waited a year to do it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm not the person you questioned, but I'd say it would be awesome because it wouldn't be the same old partisan arguments trotted out ad nauseam, accompanied by the same personal insults and attacks by the same commenters. Instead, it might be an interesting discussion about law and/or history. Wouldn't that be awesome?

[Mr. Bumble]

600 comments on Today In Supreme Court History would be far from "awesome" and boring as hell.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's why I've been doing these Supreme Court summaries. Sometimes it works.

[Mr. Bumble]

And you get a gold star (no sarc intended) as your posts are much better than Blackman's "birthday" posts.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Went over my head!

[Mr. Bumble]

That might be, but the Thursday thread is is unique in that there is no topic except what the commentators post. Few if any of the other posts garner more than a few hundred at most and the posting of new stories tends to dilute the comments (and we're already off on a tangent).

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe. It's funny though how after the initial leak the "investigation" is proven to be leak proof, which is unheard of in DC.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Leakproof? Someone has been leaking to Hot Air, if this account is accurate.

[Mr. Bumble]

Leaking what? According to Drinkwater it's a nothingburger. For what it's worth the Hot Air piece is based on a WSJ story.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Well, that's because you are not a lawyer.

[Mr. Bumble]

So with all of the lawyers that visit this site, where are all the lawyerly commentators every day?

[Mr. Bumble]

Still waiting for your insightful and thought provoking comments.