Document: 346 U.S. 137 73 S.Ct. 1045 97 L.Ed. 1508 BURNS et al.v.WILSON, Secretary of Defense al. No. 422. Argued Feb. 5, 1953. June 15, Messrs. Robert L. Carter, New York City, Frank D. Reeves, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Walter J. Cummings, Sol. Gen., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice VINSON announced the judgment Court in an opinion which REED, BURTON and CLARK join. 1 Tried separately by Army courts-martial on Island Guam, petitioners were found guilty murder rape sentenced to death. The sentences confirmed President, exhausted all remedies available them under Articles War review their convictions military tribunals. They then filed petitions writs habeas corpus United States District Columbia. 2 In these applications alleged that they had been denied due process law proceedings led conviction courts-martial. charged subjected illegal detention; coerced confessions extorted from them; counsel choice effective representation; authorities Guam suppressed evidence favorable them, procured perjured testimony against otherwise interfered with preparation defenses. Finally, trials conducted atmosphere terror vengeance, conducive mob violence instead fair play. 3 dismissed without hearing evidence, further review, after satisfying itself tried jurisdiction over persons at time trial crimes as well impose received. Dennis v. Lovett, 104 F.Supp. 310. Appeals affirmed Court's judgment, expanding scope giving petitioners' allegations full consideration merits, reviewing detail mass be transcripts other before court. Burns 91 U.S.App.D.C. 208, 202 F.2d 335. 4 We granted certiorari, 344 903, 284. Petitioners' are serious, and, reflected divergent bases decision two courts below, case poses important problems concerning proper administration power a civil court court-martial proceeding. 5 this case, we dealing applicants who assert—rightly or wrongly—that have imprisoned death result basic rights guaranteed Constitution. federal such applications. By statute, Congress has exercise power.1 Accordingly, our initial concern is not whether any consider applications; rather manner should proceed its power. 6 statute vests confined same courts. But inquiry, matters open always more narrow than cases. Hiatt Brown, 1950, 339 103, 70 495, 94 691. Thus governs cannot simply assimilated instances. It sui generis; it must so, because peculiar relationship between law. 7 Military law, like state jurisprudence exists separate apart judicial establishment.2 This played no role development; exerted supervisory enforce it; men armed forces perforce conditioned meet certain overriding demands discipline duty, agencies determine precise balance struck adjustment.3 Framers expressly entrusted task Congress. 8 Indeed, taken great care both define those subject provide complete system within secure rights. Only recently completely revised, thereafter, conformity purpose integrate services, established Uniform Code applicable members establishment.4 These enactments prompted desire objections criticisms lodged procedures aftermath World II. Nor was patchwork effort plug loopholes old justice. revised new painstaking study; reflect reform modernize system—from top bottom.5 9 Rigorous provisions guarantee free possible command influence, right prompt arraignment, accused's own choosing, witnesses prepare adequate defense.6 Articles, successor—the Code—also establish hierarchy establishment courts-martial, ferret out irregularities trial, procedural safeguards determined Nation's services.7 And finally provided special post-conviction remedy establishment, ordinary appellate whereby one convicted court-martial, may attack collaterally he stands convicted.8 10 courts, responsibilities do protect person violation his constitutional cases, even hebeas would disregard statutory scheme if failed take account prior proceedings—of determinations tribunals exhausted. 'final' 'binding' upon courts.9 held does displace courts' application prisoner. Gusik Schilder, 340 128, 71 149, 95 146. mean when dealt fully fairly allegation raised application, grant writ re-evaluate evidence. Whelchel McDonald, 122, 146, 141. 11 turn, then, case. 12 applications, noted, set forth serious charges—allegations which, cumulative effect, sufficient depict fundamental unfairness guilt rendered. Had manifestly refused claims, empowered de novo. For meaningful enough, sufficiently adaptable, soldiers civilians—from crude injustices so becomes bent fixing dispending rudimentary fairness finding truth through adherence guarantees long recognized honored 13 Petitioners asserted: arrested incommunicado officers government Guam; mistreated continuous questioning being informed rights; petitioner confessed, police confronted him confession Calvin Dennis—an accomplice crime; period about three weeks confinement, turned Air Force; 'planted' real evidence—the victim's smock hairs body attached—in truck driven night sought 'contrive' coercing various testify petitioners; benefit until short while representation removed commanding officer unit; 'hysteria' crime particularly brutal 'created' demand vengeance; 'coerced' admitted incriminating Dennis—which threats deceit.10 14 Answering respondents there attached answer copies record each Staff Judge Advocate, Board Review office Advocate General, (after briefs oral argument) Judicial Council General's office, recommendation action President confirming sentences, also General denying Article 53 War. 15 records make plain heard every significant now urge. duty repeat process—to re-examine reweigh item occurrence events tend prove disprove corpus. limited function given claims. supra. think have. 16 scrutinized rejecting contentions. lengthy opinions, concluded accorded opportunity authenticity allegations, failed. Thus, analyzed show circumstances justified remove Dennis' original defense counsel;11 declared, beginning ready proceed; ably represented; proceeded orderly fashion—with calm degree dispassion essential question guilt; exhaustive inquiry into background confessions—with taking most concerned making statements, including elected stand.12 demonstrated issues arising charges relating use planted either explored exploration trial.13 17 legally inadequate resolve claims urged record, novo precisely circumstances, regard limitations court's relief precludes action. although erred reweighing relevant certainly did err holding need Court. Accordingly affirmed. 18 Affirmed. 19 JACKSON concurs result. 20 MINTON, concurring affirmance judgment. 21 I agree sit defendants, except extent indicated below. Their committed Constitution1 acting pursuance thereof2 protection some instances President. errors 22 up distinct acted implement grants. Each other. justice, justice Due personnel what according If thus established, reviewable here. Such exclusive but exceptions contained mentioned exceptions. 64 Stat. 115, 50 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 581, U.S.C.A. 581. 23 error made personnel, corrected function, namely, see jurisdiction, jurisdiction. 24 rule clearly stated early re Grimley, 147, 150, 54, 34 636, words: 25 'It doubted inquire appears party condemned amenable discharge sentence. And, hand, equally clear correcting mere consideration. single test, * *' 26 cited excerpt above quoted approval 111, 499, After approving rejected broader claim respondent said: 27 'In accused offense charged, lawful powers. correction alone authorized decision. 28 With understanding, concur affirming 29 FRANKFURTER. 30 raises questions delicacy difficulty. On hand corpus, 'the liberty'; abstain intervening constitutionally comes us division Appeals. interest enabling indigent litigants reviewed incurring enormous cost printing, required brought here only copy consisting materials form. Consideration fallen close Term. Obviously member examine record. event me. An examination it, however, imperative view seem me canvassed. can outline legal implicit 31 invoke freedom priori technical notions 'jurisdiction.' See my dissent Sunal Large, 332 174, 184, 67 1588, 1593, 1982. imprisonment denial process, challenged matter authority Government about. war 'is limitations.' Hamilton Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 156, 40 106, 108, 194. therefore freed requirements Fifth Amendment. table weights measures ascertaining constitutes process. common ground, majority dissenting opinions language Bazelon, setting setting.' page 352. 32 challenging sentence tribunal constituted technically speaking, crime. Again, State convictions; content control trials. met hierarchy, debatable situation doubt attach weight conclusions reached controversial facts highest State. 33 light considerations assume responsibility, where life stake, Equally, feel reversing My dilemma doing neither. just involving individuals. Issues far-reaching import stake call significance submissions While arose Justice, 107, necessarily will strong bearing relations believe down reargument.* DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. 35 exacted quite lurid. basic, undisputed facts, though dramatic, leave impression repeatedly examined 5-day confessed. 36 Herman Dennis.—On January 7, 1949, custody authorities. (At supervised Navy.) He asked told give consent lie detector test. test thereafter confined. Instructions issued talk investigators, Assistant Police Berkeley, California, department called assist solution questioned intermitently Friday, Tuesday, 11. latter date 'half-brother,' Dennis, it. answered 'yes' immediately away. 37 During evening 11, agreed confess executed hand-written notes. investigators left midnight. next morning presence several officers, typed signed page. another statement day, 13, 1949. Later repudiated confessions. 38 magistrate 17, 29, formally February 1, general May 16, introduced objection defense. took stand testified involuntary untruthful. resulted 39 Burns.—This defendant 30, confess. 20, 27, 1949 him. calvin previously His later commuted Those 41 too clear; others confessed affidavit petition below alleges beaten forced promised money implicate others. says false duress. Both half-brothers fact way related. 42 entitled surrounding 43 Art. I, 8, cl. Constitution 'To Rules Regulation land naval Forces'. rules relative offenses Justice. 551 seq., seq. review. decisions used aspects trial. 44 exceeded powers tested 691; 141; 'jurisdiction' historic sense. 45 Of course governed procedure prescribed Sixth Amendments. That meaning Ex parte Quirin, 317 63 87 3, indictment grand jury commissions. tribunal. supra, 124, 147. never covered Amendments abrogated Constitution, empowering forces. text Amendment position untenable. provides: 46 'No shall capital, infamous crime, unless presentment Grand Jury, cases forces, Militia, actual service public danger; nor offence twice put jeopardy limb; compelled criminal witness himself, deprived life, liberty, property, law; private property use, compensation.' 47 What reason specific exception militia none trials? Since requirement provision inapplicable trials, seems (including ban confessions) them. applicable, how thing 48 prohibition double provisions. consistently construction urge, Wade Hunter, 336 684, 690, 69 834, 837, 93 974, courtmartial mandates himself liberty clear. too, held, binding 49 prisoner torture methods him, slowly 'broken' third-degree methods, 'trial' empty ritual. takes place secret succumbs physical psychological pressures. A solider sailor Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 265, 543; Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461; Walker Johnston, 312 275, 61 574, 85 830; Pyle Kansas, 213, 177, 214; Von Moltke Gillies, 708, 68 316, 92 309, opposed view. gives effect ruling question, 51 agency conscientiously applied standards formulated Court, rehash advance cause done that, entertain first place, supervision afforded second apply we, they, formulate. 52 prima facie expressed Watts Indiana, 338 49, 1347, 1801, violated No considered repetitious days officer, Force, said this: 'After reading re-reading reasonable mind wholly voluntary, decided, properly admitted. Where coercion conflicting, different inferences drawn voluntary triers (Lyons Oklahoma, 322 596 (64 1208, 88 1481); Lisenba 314 219 (62 280, 86 166)). nature testimony, arrived first-hand observation, presumptively correct disturbed erroneous (MGM Corporation Fear (9 Cir.), 892; ACM 3597, Maddle, Court-Martial Reports (AF) 573).' 54 There appraisal opinions. Before go death, made. 2241, 2241. Yamashita, 1946, 327 66 340, 344, 90 499. Dynes Hoover, 1858, How. 65, 85, 838; cf. Vidal, 1900, 179 126, 129, 48, 118; Reaves Ainsworth, 1911, 296, 230, 55 225; 1942, 3. See, e.g., 1890, 636; 62 627 (revised War), 107 (the Justice). history evolution behind see, H.R.Rep.No. 1034, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.; S.Rep.No.1268, 2d Report Department Advisory Committee (1946); 491, 81st S.Rep.No. 486, Sess. Ibid. Holtzoff, Administration Army, N.Y.U.L.Q.Rev. (1947); Morgan, Background Vand.L.Rev. 169 (1953). War, II) §§ 1482, 1493, 1495, 1542, 1560. 564, 567, 591, 602, 612, 621, 621. 1521. Appeals, composed civilians. automatically reviews capital discretionary system. 654, 654. Niebank, bank, Appeals—Its History, Organization Operation, 228 639, III) 1525. part 132, 660, 660; 740, 740. revisions 1521(h), 663, submitted affidavits Force chaplain, fomer civilian employee Col. Daly, former Advocate's staff was, apparently, originally accused. tended back represented Lt. Daly. misconduct moral turpitude. When this, satisfaction 'regularly appointed counsel.' At again Daly could Daly's arrest dubious status, sustained officer's determination 'available' participate month before. assisted participated pretrial investigation reject contentions McNabb States, 1943, 318 332, 608, 819, renders inadmissible requires hold void. courts; source 'due law', 'supervision courts'; 613, Gallegos Nebraska, 1951, 342 55, 72 141, 96 86; admissibility supported Mrs. Hill, employee. prosecution Many Hill trial; her Moreover note during (now 740), ordered Inspector charges, unfounded. report rely sustain conclusions, cite example efforts ignore charges. 14. particular Revised 627, supplanted Frankfurter, p. 844, 74

Category: 0