Document: 336 U.S. 695 69 S.Ct. 830 93 L.Ed. 986 HUMPHREYv.SMITH. No. 457. Argued March 30, 1949. Decided April 25, Mr. Robert W. Ginnane, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Daniel F. Mathews, Syracuse, N.Y., respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 The respondent, Bernard Smith, an American soldier, was convicted by Army court-martial rape one woman and assault with intent to another in violation 92d 93d Articles War. 10 U.S.C. §§ 1564 1565, U.S.C.A. 1564, 1565. His punishment dishonorable discharge, forfeiture all pay allowances, imprisonment life. reviewing authorities approved conviction sentence, but President reduced sixteen years' imprisonment. This habeas corpus proceeding brought a District Court challenging validity conviction. denied relief. 72 F.Supp. 935. Appeals reversed, ordering respondent's discharge. 170 F.2d 61. We granted certiorari because petition raises questions concerning important phases statutory powers scope judicial review convictions. 2 may at once dispose concention that respondent should not have been on evidence offered. That sharp dispute. But our authority proceedings judgments does permit us pass guilt or innocence persons courts-martial.1 3 It is contended without jurisdiction try If so exceeded its lawful can be invalidated despite limited court proceedings.2 soundness this contention depends upon interpretation 70th Article War, pertinent part which set out below.3 provides manner pre-trial investigations shall made preliminary trials soldiers before general courts-martial. A language 'No charge will referred martial trial until after thorough impartial investigation thereof made.' requirement jurisdictional nature; kind prescribed indispensable prerequisite exercise jurisdiction; absent such prior judgment wholly void. 4 Here there investigatio. claim it neither 'thorough' nor 'impartial' as requires. Appeals, judge dissenting, held, reversal rested finding. There no finding unfairness itself. 5 do think procedure required 70 properly construed jurisdiction. serve functions administration procedures provide safeguards accused. Its clearly defendant could object absence investigation. In event itself postpone pending And military consider same contention, reversing where failure comply has substantially injured accused.4 we are persuaded Congress intended make otherwise valid void fall short standards 70. analogous Navy courts-martial indication investigatory plan exalted level. 6 Nothing legislative history supports fair nullified conducted filing charges. original purposes were insure adequate preparation cases, guard against hasty, ill-considered charges, save innocent from stigma unfounded charg s, prevent trivial cases going War Department, Military During 63 (1919). All these relate solely actions advance formal charges trial. fully accomplished subjecting convictions invalidation made. 7 Shortly enactment 1920 Judge Advocate General did hold had investigation, ab initio.5 holding expressly repudiated later holdings Advocate.6 requirements directory, mandatory, way affect court-martial. Department's pointedly called attention 1947 amended left unchanged here under consideration.7 8 conduct deprive empower courts invalidate judgments. renders meaningless, practically making dead letter. must rest premise only if any follow procedure. cannot assume coercion essential compel obey initiated recommended congressional 70.8 reasonable assumption require compliance end work unnecessarily impeded personnel wronged result frivolous trials.9 9 resulting fairly carried War.10 Reversed. 11 MURPHY, whom DOUGLAS RUTTLEDGE concur, dissenting. 12 Pretrial seventieth performs dual function. saves Army's time eliminating cases; protects accused ignominy when him groundless. These policies, course, mean more than protection case. Their primary service appears innocent. ignored, finds innocent, error never corrected—the officers' wasted defendant's record forever besmirched words 'general martial.' Yet prisoner found guilty, still sanction. For aside unless very asking prejudiced. fair, resulted conviction, who say prejudiced wanting? 13 Unless civilian able enforce requirement, then, all, suggestion observed. Today adopts latter alternative. holds noncompliance A.W. jurisdictional. makes virtual 14 I impute bland rule Congress. sterility attention. What Eightieth thought about problem irrelevant, product Sixty-Sixth Congress, 1920, tried 1944, long convened. Had taken place 1948, might entirely different. available indicates considered vital command—'no referred' report accompanying statute, referring administering justice, concluding 'the personal element entered too largely into cases,' listed twenty-three changes law. second change mentioned this: 'Speedy cases.' H.R. Rep. 940, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. (1920), p. 2. 15 1924, just four years became law, Board Review directly opposite Court's present interpretation. held Cm 161728, Clark. Two holdings, both 1928, confirmed view. CM 182225, Keller; 183183, Claybaugh. Keller, took place, 'thorough.' 'an absolute right given statute.' 1937 reenacted construing now, expounded 1924 1928. 50 Stat. 724. seems extraordinary reversals rulings 1943, 229477, Floyd, 17 B.R. 149, govern apparently acquiesced first, contemporary, interpretations. 16 Congressional belief importance now frustrated attacked corpus. agree below case meet proper standard, would affirm judgment. Carter v. McClaughry, 183 365, 381, 22 181, 46 236; see re Yamashita, 327 1, 8—9, 66 340, 90 499, cited. United States Cooke, 210, 530; Collins McDonald, 258 416, 418, 42 326, 692; 499. include inquiries truth matter forth said form what disposition interest justice discipline. At full opportunity cross-examine witnesses they anything he desire his own behalf either defense mitigation, investigating officer examine requested forwarded accompanied statement substance testimony sides.' 41 759, 802, 724, § 1542, 1542. See also Pub. L. 80th 222, 231, 244, June 24, 1472, 1517, revise them injuriously affected substantial rights 153—156 (1943). Assistant testifying Committee Armed Services stated: 'If appeared Office man deprived right, presentation behalf, something kind, possible sentence therefore vacated. real injury rare. Ordinarily determined occurred trial.' Hearings subcommittee 11, Legal, House 2575, 1st 2059—2060 (1947). effect supra, n. 4; CMETO 4570, Hawkins, (ETO) 57, 71—75 (1945); 323486, Ruckman, 267, 272—274 Pub.L. Sess., 1948. committee hearings Department representatives subjected considerable questioning whether prerequisites. One many statements supporting view Undersecretary Royall, testified: 'However, bill factor, contemplate states practiced law requirement. know Federal courts. * departing radically accepted practice, generally throughout States, really difference between Durham this, understand.' others opposition raising level appear following pages 1924—1925, 2058—2061, 2064—2065, 2146, 2152—2153 (1919); H.R.Rep. (1920). Secretary Royall told Committee: 'We believe strongly can, grounds technical appeal.' H R. 2152 Courts Appeal agreement question. Henry Hodges, 76 968, 970—974; Anthony Hunter, 71 823, 830—831; Hicks Hiatt, 64 238, 242; Waite Overlade, Cir., 164 722, 723—724; De 993, 995—997.

Category: 0