Today in Supreme Court History: February 17, 1801

2/17/1801: House of Representatives breaks tie in Electoral College, and selects Thomas Jefferson as President.

Thomas Jefferson

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (decided February 17, 1936): confessions “extorted by brutality and violence” violated Due Process under Fourteenth Amendment (illiterate black men accused of killing white planter were “pre-hanged” to extort confessions; rope marks on their necks were visible at trial)

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (decided February 17, 1964): applies “one person, one vote” Equal Protection rule to House of Representatives and invalidates redistricting in Georgia where one Congressional district had three times as many people as neighboring districts; in dissent Harlan points out that several one-district states have far less people than any one Georgia district and argues that Court cannot tell Congress how to constitute itself

United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75 (decided February 17, 1964): Federal Kidnapping Act applies to air travel and does not require monetary motive (defendants hijacked private plane to Cuba, in effect kidnapping pilot)

Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (decided February 17, 1947): trainees alleging inadequate wages (they were given only an allowance for expenses) were not “employees” so as to bring Fair Labor Standards Act suit; railroad did not have obligation to hire them at end of two-week training and they were free to go work for another railroad

Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S. 329 (decided February 17, 1941): habeas granted to prisoner denied counsel who agreed to plead guilty without ever being told what the charges were

[SRG2]

In cases like Brown, while I do not wonder at the trial judge's decisions, I am constantly surprised at how vile the states' supreme courts are in denying appeals.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The decision below is here:

https://casetext.com/case/brown-et-al-v-state-6

Not too out of line from what I’d expect in Mississippi in 1935, although at least there were two dissents.

Notwithstanding the supreme court’s statement that there was “ there was no evidence sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury” besides the confessions, on remand the prosecutor decided to proceed with a retrial. The defendants all pled nolo contendere to manslaughter in exchange for reduced sentences instead.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks for the added info

[SRG2]

It seems that, "yeah they did beat the crap out of him before he confessed, but the confession was obtained freely and voluntarily" is the basic position of the prosecution - agreed by the courts - in countless cases in those days.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I can't find it now, but there used to be a rule that, though the initial confession was via torture, the confession was admissible if made again later on without torture. Maybe it was a Catholic Church Inquisition rule?

[Syd Henderson]

Someone should write a novel about Smith v. Grady. Paging Mr. Kafka!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The way we deal with non-majorities in the Electoral College is somewhat asinine. Each state having one vote? Stupid. It would help if we did things by popular vote. At least, there should be a way for people in territories to vote for president and vice president.

BTW, the "Healy" should not be confused with Capt. Roger Healey in I Dream of Jeannie.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I would not mind being kidnapped by Barbara Eden when she's wearing that genie outfit.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

> The way we deal with non-majorities in the Electoral College is ...asinine. FIFY

If the Electoral College vote fails, the most logical vehicle to choose a new President would be a joint session of the incoming Congress.

It might work as follows:

Select from the top 3 popular-vote getters and top 3 electoral vote-getters. Depending on the number of overlaps, that would give from 3 to 6 finalists.

Each day, the joint session would hold a vote to eliminate the least popular finalist. If the last two finalists are tied, the tie would be broken by some pre-agreed arbitrary standard, eg the age of the candidates?

[F.D. Wolf]

The presidential election of 1800 took place between October 3 and December 1. (Congress had not yet legislated a uniform Election Day for all the states). As presidential and vice-presidential votes were not differentiated under the pre-Twelfth Amendment system, the final electoral vote count was Jefferson, 73; Burr, 73; Adams, 65; Pinckney, 64; and Jay, 1. (Note the Federalist electors had the good sense to throw away one vote, in order to prevent exactly what happened from happening, had they won).

Had no candidate won a majority of votes from the 138 electors (70), the House would have chosen from among the top five finishers, with the winner becoming President and the runner-up becoming Vice President. (Under this scenario, the most likely result would have been John Adams being re-elected as President and Thomas Jefferson being re-elected as Vice President.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Without the three-fifths counting of slaves, Adams probably would have won.

[No One Of Consequence]

Only if instead of 3/5, they were counted as 0. If they were counted as 1, Adams probably wouldn't even be in the running.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well yes, but in that case you'd might as well count all the cows and horses too.

[Area Man]

That’s one of the ironies of history. Modern people always assume that slaves were counted as 3/5 a person as some sort of slight against them, to dehumanize them even more. But in reality, the NON-slave states didn’t want them counted at all to cut down on the power of the slavocracy, while the slavers wanted them counted as whole people so they could aggregate more power to themselves. It would be nice if they taught that better to young people.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This was taught explicitly in every class I’ve taken covering the subject, starting in middle school and continuing to law school. It didn’t stop people from failing to get it as soon as the class was over.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My girlfriend in law school, a 3L no less, up on the dais at an event with Robert Bork, got this wrong in (trying to) ask him a pointed question. He had to correct her.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The overall idea came from a pre-constitutional proposal involving allotting taxes. The South cried foul since they saw slaves as property & thought it unfair that only their property was being taxed. Also, slaves were considered to be less economically productive. Economic production was one factor in allotting taxes.

A compromise was achieved to count slaves by 3/5, which was later used in the Constitution. The two sides had different concerns this time. The South wanted slaves to be fully counted while the North wouldn't mind if they were not counted at all. So, both sides got something and gave up something.

The idea that the 3/5 Compromise diminishes the personhood of slaves is not totally off base. The compromise partially arises from slaves being considered both persons and property.

See, e.g., Federalist 54: "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property."

A full understanding recognizes that slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for specific purposes (representation and direct taxes).

They were in all ways labeled "persons." If slaves were not counted at all, arguably it would be easy to consider them non-persons.

Slaveholders kept on talking about their constitutional interest in slave property. The Constitution, as Lincoln reminded them at Cooper Union, always calls slaves "persons."

The humanity of slaves is explicitly stated. Their status as property was (intentionally) hidden by circumlocations. The Confederate Constitution was blunter, repeatedly using the terms "slave" and "slavery."

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included?"

Gouverneur Morris, at the Constitutional Convention

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Morrisania in the Bronx is named after the Morris Family who used to live in the area. Don't think they would want to now.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Agree. I've been there.

Not as bad as it was in the 1970's, though.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There's also a town named after him in the North Country of New York State -- Gouverneur, which the locals pronounce "Governor", except with the accent on the last syllable. I've been there a few times on the way to courthouses.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Morris Park, another Bronx neighborhood, is named after John Albert Morris, who built the Morris Park Racecourse.

I'm not sure if he's any relation.

[A Japanese Student]

Hokkai Times Case (Grand Bench, decided February 17, 1958): Freedom of press not infringed by banning cameras inside courtroom; affirmed contempt against photographer for trying to approach the bench from the gallery

Niigata Airport Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 17, 1989): Residents near airports have standing to seek revocation of flight route authorization to reduce noise pollution

Assault and Cruelty by Specialized Public Employees Causing Death Case (First Petty Bench, decided February 17, 1999): Neighbors ask the police to find a mentally disabled person. Cop finds him brandishing a knife; after an altercation and warning the cop shoots him. He then grabs a metal rod and hits the cop. The cop shoots him again, this time fatally. Supreme Court upholds cop's manslaughter conviction; the officer provoked him (given he was not actively assaulting the cop before the first shot), so use of weapon was not "within the limits judged reasonably necessary in the situation" (see Police Duties Execution Act, §7)

Injury Causing Death Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 17, 2004): Failure of manslaughter victim to follow physicians' advice (including trying to get out of hospital) does not negate defendant's liability

Certified Kokoku-Appeal to Discovery Order (Second Petty Bench, decided February 17th, 2006): Document sent to bank's branch office not privileged as "prepared exclusively for the use of the person in possession"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Assault and Cruelty by Specialized Public Employees Causing Death Case

The courts show a lower standard of concern for the value of human life in those cases in the United States.

[A Japanese Student]

Police officers here practically never use their firearms. How do they arrest people then? Martial arts, called 逮捕術 - the art of arrest. It's both a practical skill and a sport played by officers at an annual competition.