Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/343/341/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-06-26 16:38:05
Document Index: 257114788

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', 'Art. 33', '§ 1486', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', '§ 1486', '§ 581', '§ 1564']

MADSEN V. KINSELLA, 343 U. S. 341 (1952) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 343 > MADSEN V. KINSELLA, 343 U. S. 341 (1952)
MADSEN V. KINSELLA, 343 U. S. 341 (1952)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 343 U. S. 341
The United States Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany had jurisdiction, in 1950, to try petitioner, a civilian citizen of the United States who was the dependent wife of a member of the United States Armed Forces, on a charge of murdering her husband, in October, 1949, within the United States Area of Control in Germany, in violation of § 211 of the German Criminal Code. Pp. 343 U. S. 342-362.
1. Both United States courts-martial and United States Military Commissions or tribunals in the nature of such commissions had jurisdiction in Germany in 1949-1950 to try persons in the status of petitioner on the charge against her. Pp. 343 U. S. 345-355.
(a) The provisions added in 1916 by Articles 2 and 12 of the Articles of War, extending the jurisdiction of courts-martial over civilian offenders and over certain nonmilitary offenses, did not deprive military commissions and other military tribunals of whatever jurisdiction they then had over such offenders and offenses, since that concurrent jurisdiction was preserved to such commissions and tribunals by Article 15. Pp. 343 U. S. 350-355.
2. The United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany were, at the time of the trial of petitioner's case, tribunals in the nature of military commissions conforming to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Pp. 343 U. S. 356-360.
(a) The fact that the occupation statute took effect prior to the date of the crime did not vitiate the constitutional authority for petitioner's trial by military commission. P. 343 U. S. 360.
3. Petitioner and the offense charged against her came within the jurisdiction assigned to the court which tried her. Pp. 343 U. S. 360-362.
(a) Military Government Ordinance No. 31 expressly gave to the occupation courts jurisdiction over civilian men and women who were subject to military law, and petitioner was a "person subject to military law" within the definition of Article of War 2(d). Pp. 343 U. S. 360-361.
(b) The requirement of Article 7 of Military Government Ordinance No. 31, that no person subject to military law shall be chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
brought to trial for any offense "except upon authorization of the Commander-in-Chief, European Command," was satisfied in this case. P. 343 U. S. 361.
(c) The German Criminal Code was applicable to petitioner's offense by virtue of its express adoption by the United States Military Government. Pp. 343 U. S. 361-362.
(d) The United States expressly required that its civilians be tried by its occupation courts, rather than by the German courts. P. 343 U. S. 362.
4. The jurisdiction of the United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany to try petitioner being established, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the discharge of the writ of habeas corpus for petitioner's release from custody is affirmed. P. 343 U. S. 362.
In a habeas corpus proceeding seeking petitioner's release from federal custody, the District Court discharged the writ and remanded petitioner to the custody of respondent. 93 F.Supp. 319. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 188 F.2d 272. This Court granted certiorari. 342 U.S. 865. Affirmed, p. 343 U. S. 362.
The principal question here is whether a United States Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany had jurisdiction, in 1950, to try a civilian citizen of the United States, who was the dependent wife of a member of the United States Armed Forces, on a charge of murdering her husband in violation of § 211 of the German Criminal chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
I. Petitioner's status in Germany. -- Petitioner is a native-born citizen of the United States who lawfully entered the American Zone of Occupied Germany in 1947 with her husband, Lieutenant Madsen of the United States Air Force. In 1949, she resided there, with him, in a house requisitioned for military use, furnished and maintained by military authority. She was permitted to use the facilities of the United States Army maintained there for persons in its service and for those serving with or accompanying the United States Armed Forces. In brief, her status was that of a civilian dependent wife of a member of the United States Armed Forces which were then occupying the United States Area of Control in Germany.
October 20, 1949, following her fatal shooting of her husband at their residence at Buchschleg, Kreis Frankfurt, Germany, she was arrested there by the United chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
States Air Force Military Police. On the following day, before a "United States Military Government Court," [Footnote 1] she was charged with the murder of her husband in violation of § 211 of the German Criminal Code. [Footnote 2] In February, 1950, she was tried by "The United States Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany, Fourth Judicial District." [Footnote 3] That court was composed of three United States civilians, two of whom had been appointed as district judges and one as a magistrate by or under the authority of the Military Governor of the United States Area of Control. [Footnote 4] The court adjudged her guilty and sentenced chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
her to 15 years in the Federal Reformatory for Women at Alderson, West Virginia, or elsewhere as the Secretary of the Army might direct. In May, the "Court of Appeals of the United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany," composed of five United States civilians appointed by the Military Governor of the Area, [Footnote 5] affirmed the judgment, but committed her to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative. The Director of the United States Bureau of Prisons designated the Federal Reformatory for Women at Alderson, West Virginia, as the place for her confinement. [Footnote 6]
II. Both United States courts-martial, and United States Military Commissions or tribunals in the nature of such commissions, had jurisdiction in Germany in 1949-1950 to try persons in the status of petitioner on the charge against her. -- Petitioner does not here attack the merits of her conviction, nor does she claim that any non-military court of the United States or Germany had jurisdiction to try her. [Footnote 7] It is agreed by the parties to this proceeding that a regularly convened United States general court-martial would have had jurisdiction to try her. The United States, however, contends, and petitioner denies, that the United States Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany, which tried her, also had jurisdiction chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The key to the issue is to be found in the history of United States military commissions [Footnote 8] and of United States occupation courts in the nature of such commissions. Since our nation's earliest days, such commissions have been constitutionally recognized agencies for meeting many urgent governmental responsibilities related to war. [Footnote 9] They have been called our common law war chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
courts. [Footnote 10] They have taken many forms and borne many names. [Footnote 11] Neither their procedure nor their jurisdiction has been prescribed by statute. It has been adapted in chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
each instance to the need that called it forth. See In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 327 U. S. 18-23.
In the absence of attempts by Congress to limit the President's power, it appears that, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, he may, in time of war, establish and prescribe the jurisdiction and procedure of military commissions, and of tribunals in the nature of such commissions, in territory occupied by Armed Forces of the United States. His authority to do this sometimes survives cessation of hostilities. [Footnote 12] The President has the urgent and infinite responsibility not only of combating the enemy, but of governing any territory occupied by the United States by force of arms. [Footnote 13] The policy of Congress to refrain from legislating in this chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
uncharted area does not imply its lack of power to legislate. That evident restraint contrasts with its traditional readiness to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. . . ." [Footnote 14] Under that clause, Congress has enacted and repeatedly revised the Articles of War which have prescribed with particularity the jurisdiction and procedure of United States courts-martial.
Originally Congress gave to courts-martial jurisdiction over only members of the Armed Forces and civilians rendering functional service to the Armed Forces in camp or in the field. [Footnote 15] Similarly, the Articles of War at first dealt with nonmilitary crimes only by surrendering the accused to the civil authorities. Art. 33, American Articles of War of 1806, Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents (22d ed.1920 reprint) 979. However, in 1863, this latter jurisdiction was enlarged to include many crimes "committed by persons who are in the military service of the United States. . . ." [Footnote 16] Still it did not cover crimes committed by civilians who, like petitioner, were merely accompanying a member of the Armed Forces. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"C. JURISDICTION"
39 Stat. 651, 652, 653. [Footnote 17]
Article 15 thus forestalled precisely the contention now being made by petitioner. That contention is that certain provisions, added in 1916 by Articles 2 and 12 extending the jurisdiction of courts-martial over civilian offenders and over certain nonmilitary offenses, automatically chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
deprived military commissions and other military tribunals of whatever existing jurisdiction they then had over such offenders and offenses. Articles 2 and 12, together, extended the jurisdiction of courts-martial so as to include "all persons accompanying or serving with the armies of the United States without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. . . ." [Footnote 18] The 1916 Act also increased the nonmilitary offenses for which civilian offenders could be tried by courts-martial. [Footnote 19] Article 15, however, completely disposes of that contention. It states unequivocally that Congress has not deprived such commissions or tribunals of the existing jurisdiction which they had over such offenders and offenses as of August 29, 1916. 39 Stat. 653, 670. See In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, and Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The legislative history strengthens the Government's position. During the consideration by Congress of the proposed Articles of War, in 1916, Judge Advocate General of the Army Crowder sponsored Article 15, and the authoritative nature of his testimony has been recognized by this Court. In re Yamashita, supra, at 327 U. S. 19 note, 327 U. S. 67-71. Before the Senate Subcommittee on Military Affairs he said:
S.Rep. No. 130, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. 40. [Footnote 20] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The concurrent jurisdiction thus preserved is that which, "by statute or by the law of war, may be triable by such military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals." (Emphasis supplied.) 39 Stat. 653, 41 Stat. 790, 10 U.S.C. § 1486. The "law of war" in that connection includes at least that part of the law of nations which defines the powers and duties of belligerent powers occupying enemy territory pending the establishment of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
civil government. [Footnote 21] The jurisdiction exercised by our military commissions in the examples previously mentioned extended to nonmilitary crimes, such as murder and other crimes of violence, which the United States as the occupying power felt it necessary to suppress. In the case of In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 327 U. S. 20, following a quotation from Article 15, this Court said,
"By thus recognizing military commissions in order to preserve their traditional jurisdiction over enemy combatants unimpaired by the Articles, Congress gave sanction, as we held in Ex parte Quirin, to any use of the military commission contemplated by the common law of war. [Footnote 22]"
The enlarged jurisdiction of the courts-martial therefore did not exclude the concurrent jurisdiction of military commissions and of tribunals in the nature of such commissions. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
III. The United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany were at the time of the trial of petitioner's case, tribunals in the nature of military commissions conforming to the Constitution and laws of the United States. -- Under the authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces occupying a certain area of Germany conquered by the allies, the system of occupation courts now before us developed gradually. The occupation courts in Germany are designed especially to meet the needs of law enforcement in that occupied territory in relation to civilians and to nonmilitary offenses. Those courts have been directed to apply the German Criminal Code largely as it was theretofore in force. (See Appendix, infra pp. 343 U. S. 362-371, entitled "Chronology of Establishment of United States Military Government Courts and Their Jurisdiction Over Civilians in the United States Area of Control in Germany 1945-1950.") The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, in 1945, established, through the Commanding General of the United States Forces in the European Theater, a United States Military Government for Germany within the United States Area of Control. Military Government Courts, in the nature of military commissions, were then a part of the Military Government. By October 20, 1949, when petitioner was alleged to have committed the offense charged against her, those courts were known as United States Military Government Courts. They were vested with jurisdiction to enforce the German Criminal Code in relation to civilians in petitioner's status in the area where the homicide occurred.
Executive Order 10062, June 6, 1949, 14 Fed.Reg. 2965, Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 367; Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, Staff Announcement No. 1, September 21, 1949, Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 368. Under the Transitional Provisions of Allied High Commission, Law No. 3, Article 5, 14 Fed.Reg. 7458, Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 369, preexisting legislation was applied to the appropriate new authorities. Finally, by Allied High Commission, Law No. 1, Article 1, 15 Fed.Reg. 2086, Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 370, effective January 1, 1950, the name of the "United States Military Government Courts for Germany" was changed to "United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany." They derived their authority from the President as occupation courts, or tribunals in the nature of military commissions, in areas still occupied by United States troops. Although the local government was no longer a "Military Government," it was a government prescribed by an occupying power, and it depended upon the continuing military occupancy of the territory.
The government of the occupied area thus passed merely from the control of the United States Department of Defense to that of the United States Department of State. The military functions continued to be important, and were administered under the direction of the Commander of the United States Armed Forces in Germany. He remained under orders to take the necessary measures, on request of the United States High Commissioner, for the maintenance of law and order and to take such other action as might be required to support the policy of the United States in Germany. Executive Order 10062, supra. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The judges who served on the occupation courts were civilians, appointed by the United States Military Governor for Germany, and thereafter continued in office or appointed by the United States High Commissioner for Germany. Their constitutional authority continued to stem from the President. The members of the trial court were designated by the Chief Presiding District Judge as a panel to try the case. The volume of business, the size of the area, the number of civilians affected, the duration of the occupation, and the need for establishing confidence in civilian procedure emphasized the propriety of tribunals of a nonmilitary character. [Footnote 23] With this purpose, the Military Government Courts for Germany, substantially from their establishment, have had a less military character than that of courts-martial. [Footnote 24] In 1948, provision chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
was made for the appointment of civilian judges with substantial legal experience. The rights of individuals were safeguarded by a code of criminal procedure dealing with warrants, summons, preliminary hearings, trials, evidence, witnesses, findings, sentences, contempt, review of cases and appeals. [Footnote 25] This subjected German and United chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
States civilians to the same procedures and exhibited confidence in the fairness of those procedures. [Footnote 26]
It is suggested that, because the occupation statute took effect September 21, 1949, whereas the crime charged occurred October 20, 1949, the constitutional authority for petitioner's trial by military commission expired before the crime took place. Such is not the case. The authority for such commissions does not necessarily expire upon cessation of hostilities or even, for all purposes, with a treaty of peace. It may continue long enough to permit the occupying power to discharge its responsibilities fully. Santiago v. Nogueras, 214 U. S. 260; Neely v. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109, 180 U. S. 124; Burke v. Miltenberger, 19 Wall. 519; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176; Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164. [Footnote 27]
IV. Petitioner and the offense charged against her came within the jurisdiction assigned to the court which tried her. -- Under United States Military Government Ordinance chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
No. 31, August 18, 1948, Article 7, 14 Fed.Reg. 126, Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 365, the United States gave its Military Government District Courts
"all persons accompanying or serving with the armies of the United States without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. . . . [Footnote 28]"
14 Fed.Reg. 126, Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 365. That authorization appears in the official correspondence relating to the case of Wilma B. Ybarbo. The correspondence includes a written endorsement from the proper authority, dated December 11, 1948, covering not only the Ybarbo case, but also the case "of any dependent of a member of the United States Armed Forces. . . ." See Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 367.
The applicability of the German Criminal Code to petitioner's offense springs from its express adoption by the United States Military Government. The United States Commanding General, in his Proclamation No. 2, September 19, 1945, stated that, except as abrogated, suspended or modified by the Military Government or by the Control chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Council for Germany, "the German law in force at the time of the occupation shall be applicable in each area of the United States Zone of Occupation. . . ." 12 Fed.Reg. 6997, Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 363. [Footnote 29] Section 211 of the German Criminal Code accordingly was applicable to petitioner on October 20, 1949. The United States also expressly required that its civilians be tried by its occupation courts, rather than by the German courts. United States Military Government Law No. 2, German courts, Art. VI(i)(c) and (d), 12 Fed.Reg. 2191, 2192, Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 364. United States Military Government Ordinance No. 2, Art. II(2)(iii), 12 Fed.Reg. 2190-2191, Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 363.
See United States Military Government Ordinance No. 31, August 18, 1948, 14 Fed.Reg. 124-128. See Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 365.
" Murder -- Mord"
" 211. (As in force prior to 4 September 1941). Whoever intentionally kills a human being is guilty of murder if the killing was accomplished with premeditation, and shall be punished by death."
" 211. (As amended 4 September 1941, RGBI I, 549). The murderer shall be punished by death."
" If, in especially exceptional cases, the death penalty is not suitable (angemessen), punishment of confinement for life in a penitentiary shall be imposed."
See Allied High Commission, Law No. 1, Art. 1, December 28, 1949, 15 Fed.Reg. 2086, Appendix, infra pp. 343 U. S. 370-371.
See notes 1 3 and < a>| 3 and < a>S. 341fn4|>4, supra.
There was no nonmilitary court of the United States in Germany. She enjoyed the immunity from the jurisdiction of all German courts which had been granted to nationals of the United Nations and to families of members of the occupation forces. United States Military Government Law No. 2, Art. VI(1), 12 Fed.Reg. 2191, 2192, Appendix, infra p. 343 U. S. 364; Allied High Commission, Law No. 2, Art. 1, 14 Fed.Reg. 7457, Appendix, infra p. 343 U. S. 369; Allied High Commission, Law No. 13, Art. 1, 15 Fed.Reg. 1056-1057, see Appendix, infra p. 343 U. S. 370.
For text of General Scott's General Order No. 20, as amended by General Order No. 287, September 17, 1847, authorizing the appointment of military commissions in Mexico, see Birkhimer, Military Government and Martial Law (2d ed. rev.1904), App. I, 581-582. See also Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U. S. 304; In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1; Santiago v. Nogueras, 214 U. S. 260; Neely v. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109; 89 U. S. 279 note; 76 U. S. 132; 57 U. S. 190; II Halleck, International Law (3d ed. 1893), 444-445. For an example of the exercise of jurisdiction in a murder case by a Provisional Court established in Louisiana, in 1862, by executive order of the President of the United States and an opinion by the Provisional Judge reviewing the constitutional authority for the establishment of his court, see United States v. Reiter,@ 27 Fed.Cas.No.16,146.
It has been recognized, even after peace has been declared, pending complete establishment of civil government. See Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U. S. 304; In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 327 U. S. 12-13; Santiago v. Nogueras, 214 U. S. 260; Neely v. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109; Burke v. Miltenberger, 19 Wall. 519; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176; Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164.
Winthrop, op. cit. 800.
"All suttlers and retailers to a camp, and all persons whatsoever, serving with the continental army in the field, though not inlisted soldiers, are to be subject to the articles, rules, and regulations of the continental army."
(Emphasis supplied.) Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents (2d ed.1920 reprint) 956, and see 941 and 950. Article 60 of the Articles of War of 1806 was similar. It substituted "retainers" for "retailers." Id. at 981. Article 60 was slightly amended in 1874. By 1916, as Article 63, Congress still provided, as to civilians, merely that
"All retainers to the camp, and all persons serving with the armies of the United States in the field, though not enlisted soldiers, are to be subject to orders, according to the rules and discipline of war."
(Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 991, and see 98-99.
"SEC. 30. . . . in time of war, insurrection, or rebellion, murder, assault and battery with an intent to kill, manslaughter . . . shall be punishable by the sentence of a general court-martial or military commission, when committed by persons who are in the military service of the United States, and subject to the articles of war, and the punishments for such offences shall never be less than those inflicted by the laws of the state, territory, or district in which they may have been committed."
In the codification published as the Revised Statutes of 1874, the incidental reference to military commissions was omitted. Article of War 58 at 234. Petitioner attaches substantial significance to the omission. It seems clear, however, that, regardless of what effect, if any, may attach to that omission in its relation to the jurisdiction of military commissions over persons in the military service, it has no effect on the jurisdiction of military commissions over civilians not "in the military service." This section of the Act of 1863 was enacted so as to place soldiers who committed certain nonmilitary crimes under the jurisdiction of military courts. See Caldwell v. Parker, 252 U. S. 376. The section did not relate to the jurisdiction of courts or commissions over civilians not in the military service. Cong.Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess. 988, 1256, 1377, 1384 (1863). For discussion of the phrase "in the military service" as used in Articles 58 and 60, see Gen. Crowder's testimony. S.Rep.No.229, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 104.
In 1920, Article of War 15 was reenacted with the addition of "by statute or" before the words "by the law of war." 41 Stat. 790, 10 U.S.C. § 1486. It was in that form in 1949 and 1950. It was again reenacted May 5, 1950, as the present Article 21 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, effective May 31, 1951. 64 Stat. 115, 145, 50 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 581. The hearings, in 1949, on the latter legislation are of some significance here. They disclosed that the United States Military Government Courts in Germany were then exercising, in the occupied territory, criminal jurisdiction over United States civilians accompanying the Armed Forces. Attention even was called to the recent case of Wilma B. Ybarbo. Like petitioner in the instant case, she was a civilian dependent wife of a member of the United States Armed Forces in Germany, charged with the murder of her husband in violation of the German Criminal Code. She was convicted by the United States Military Government Court for the Third Judicial District. The Court of Appeals of the United States Military Government Courts, March 14, 1949, upheld her conviction, on a lesser charge, and sentenced her to five years' imprisonment. In its opinion, the latter court reviewed the basis for its jurisdiction. United States Military Government v. Ybarbo, 1 U.S.M.G.Court of Appeals 207. See also Hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services on H.R. 2498, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 876, 975, 1061. With this practice before them, the Committees of both Houses of Congress recommended the reenactment of Article of War 15 as Article 21 of the new code. They said, "This article preserves existing Army and Air Force law, which gives concurrent jurisdiction to military tribunals other than courts martial." S.Rep.No.486, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 13; H.R.Rep.No.491, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 17.
The 1916 Act substituted, for Article 63 (see note 15 supra), a new Article 12 which provided that
"General courts-martial shall have power to try any person subject to military law for any crime or offense made punishable by these articles, and any other person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunals. . . ."
"(d) All retainers to the camp and all persons accompanying or serving with the armies of the United States without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and in time of war all such retainers and persons accompanying or serving with the armies of the United States in the field, both within and without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, though not otherwise subject to these articles. . . ."
In 1916, new Articles 92 and 93 expanded the jurisdiction of courts-martial over murder and certain other nonmilitary crimes so as to cover their commission by any "person subject to military law." That phrase, through Article 2, included civilians in the status of petitioner. See note 18 supra. For Articles 92 and 93, see 39 Stat. 664, 41 Stat. 805, 62 Stat. 640, 10 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) §§ 1564, 1565. See note 16 supra, for the substance of Article 30 of the Articles of War of 1863 and of Article 58 of the Articles of War of 1874.
"The next article, No. 15, is entirely new, and the reasons for its insertion in the code are these: in our War with Mexico, two war courts were brought into existence by orders of Gen. Scott, viz., the military commission and the council of war. By the military commission, Gen. Scott tried cases cognizable in time of peace by civil courts, and, by the council of war, he tried offenses against the laws of war. The council of war did not survive the Mexican War period, and in our subsequent wars its jurisdiction has been taken over by the military commission, which, during the Civil War period, tried more than 2,000 cases. While the military commission has not been formally authorized by statute, its jurisdiction as a war court has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is an institution of the greatest importance in a period of war, and should be preserved. In the new code, the jurisdiction of courts-martial has been somewhat amplified by the introduction of the phrase 'Persons subject to military law.' There will be more instances in the future than in the past when the jurisdiction of courts-martial will overlap that of the war courts, and the question would arise whether, Congress having vested jurisdiction by statute, the common law of war jurisdiction was not ousted. I wish to make it perfectly plain by the new article that, in such cases, the jurisdiction of the war court is concurrent."
In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 28, this Court said:
In that case, the military commission's conviction of saboteurs, including one citizen of the United States, was upheld on charges of violating the law of war as defined by statute. 317 U.S. at 317 U. S. 35-38.
The Government estimates that the United States Area of Control has a German population of about 17,000,000, plus United Nations nationals, including refugees. As of November 30, 1949, it estimates that there were in Germany about 34,000 dependents of members of United States Armed Forces, plus 4,700 civilian employees with 5,000 dependents. Other United States agencies had 4,100 employees in Germany. The occupation courts have been handling at least 1,000 criminal cases a month, including from 25 to 30 cases involving American civilians. See also general account of the development of the Military Government Courts in Clay, Decision in Germany (1950), 246-248.
Cf. the order of President Lincoln of October 20, 1862, establishing a Provisional Court in New Orleans, Louisiana, as a "court of record for the Louisiana" with a civilian as
"a provisional judge, to hold said court, with authority to hear, try, and determine all causes, civil and criminal, including causes in law, equity, revenue, and admiralty, and particularly all such powers and jurisdiction as belong to the District and Circuit courts of the United States, conforming his proceedings, so far as possible, to the course of proceedings and practice which has been customary in the courts of the United States in Louisiana, his judgments to be final and conclusive. . . . These appointments [of prosecuting attorney, marshal, and clerk of the court] are to continue during the pleasure of the President, not extending beyond the military occupation of the City of New Orleans, or the restoration of the civil authority in that city and the State of Louisiana."
(Emphasis supplied.) 89 U. S. 279 note, and see United States v. Reiter,@ 27 Fed.Cas.No.16, 146.
They did not provide for juries. The presentment or indictment of a grand jury required in a federal capital case by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, under the terms of that Amendment, has no application to "cases arising in the land or naval forces. . . ." The right of trial by jury required in federal criminal prosecutions by the Sixth Amendment is similarly limited. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 40, 317 U. S. 43-45; @ 71 U. S. 123, 71 U. S. 138.
Winthrop, op. cit. 801.
Cf. Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158, 100 U. S. 166; Ketchum v. Buckley, 99 U. S. 188, as illustrations of the practice of recognizing the existing law of the occupied area, and Winthrop, op. cit. 800.
1. June 5, 1945. -- Allied Powers assumed
2. July 14, 1945. -- Commanding General, United States Armed Forces in Europe, established a Military Government under his authority in the United States Zone of Occupation -- Military Government -- United States Area of Control, Proclamation No. 1, 12 Fed.Reg. 6997.
3. September 19, 1945. -- Commanding General, United States Forces, European Theater, proclaimed:
"Article II. Except as heretofore abrogated, suspended or modified by Military Government or by the Control Council for Germany, the German law in force at the time of the occupation shall be applicable in each area of the United States Zone of Occupation, until repealed by, or superseded by a new law enacted by the Control Council for Germany, or by Military Government or the states hereby constituted or by other competent authority."
4. 1946. -- Military Government Courts, as distinguished from courts-martial, were given jurisdiction over all persons in the occupied territory, including civilians subject to military law and over offenses under the laws of the occupied territory.
". . . Article II; jurisdiction. (1) Military Government courts shall have jurisdiction over all persons in the occupied territory except persons other than civilians who are subject to military, naval or air force law and are serving under the command
"(2) Military Government Courts shall have jurisdiction over: "
"(iii) All offences under the laws of the occupied territory or of any part thereof."
5. 1946. -- German courts were denied jurisdiction in certain criminal cases, including those involving any national of the United Nations or any dependent accompanying any of the Armed Forces of any of the United Nations.
". . . Article VI; limitations on jurisdiction. (1) Except when expressly authorized by Control Council or Military Government Law, ordinance or regulation, or by order of the Director of Military Government of the appropriate Land, no German court shall assert or exercise jurisdiction in the following cases or classes [of] cases:"
"(a) Any of the United Nations, or"
"(b) The Armed Forces of any of the United Nations, or"
"(c) Any person serving with any such Forces or a dependent accompanying any of them, or"
"(d) Any national of the United Nations, or. . . ."
United States Military Government, Law No. 2, German courts, 12 Fed.Reg. 2191, 2192. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
6. August 18, 1948. -- United States Military Government Courts for Germany established.
". . . Ordinance No. 31; United States Military Government Courts for Germany; creation of the courts -- (a) Article 1; judicial system. A system of courts is hereby established for the United States Area of Control of Germany. . . ."
"(c) Article 3; District Courts. (1) A District Court is hereby established for each judicial district within the United States Area of Control."
"(8) Where an accused is charged with an offense under German law, the Court shall be limited to the sentence or other penal provision of such law."
"JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS"
"(g) Article 7, jurisdiction of District Courts in criminal cases. (1) District Courts shall have criminal
jurisdiction over all persons in the United States Area of Control except persons, other than civilians, who are subject to military, naval or air force law and are serving with any forces of the United Nations. No person subject to military law of the United States shall be brought to trial for any offense except upon authorization of the Commander-in-Chief, European Command. No member of an Allied Mission, visiting governmental official, or person subject to the military law of any country other than the United States shall be brought to trial for any offense except upon authorization of the Military Governor."
"(2) District Courts shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:"
"(iii) Offenses under German law in force in the Judicial District of the Court."
7. December 11, 1948. -- The Commander-in-Chief of the United States European Command endorsement addressed to the Chief Attorney, United States Military Government Courts for Germany:
Resp.Ex. 4, R. 71. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
8. May 12, 1949. -- Occupation statute promulgated by Military Governors and Commanders-in-Chief of the Western Zones of Germany -- to become effective at a later date. It declared that --
9. June 6, 1949. -- Executive Order 10062 of the President Establishing the Position of United States High Commissioner for Germany:
10. September 21, 1949. -- Council of Allied High Commission declared occupation statute to be in force as promulgated May 12, 1949. 14 Fed.Reg. 7456.
11. September 21, 1949. -- United States High Commissioner for Germany, in accordance with Executive Order 10062, assumed the authority residing in the United States Military Governor and the Office of Military Government for Germany for the governmental functions of the United States in Germany:
Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, Staff Announcement No. 1, Resp.Ex. 1, R. 67, 68. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
12. September 21, 1949. -- The United States High Commissioner for Germany announced that the United States Courts for Germany, as established by Staff Announcement No. 1 (and previously established as the "United States Military Government Courts for Germany," pursuant to United States Military Government Ordinance No. 31),
13. September 21, 1949. -- "Allied Forces" defined by Allied High Commission:
"(b) The Occupation Forces and their members."
"(d) Members of the families and non-German persons in the service of the persons referred to in subparagraphs (a)(b) and (c) of this paragraph."
14. September 21, 1949. -- Transitional Provisions proclaimed by Allied High Commission for Germany adapting existing legislation to the provisions of the occupation statute effective September 21, 1949. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
15. November 25, 1949. -- Judicial powers were reserved, from the German courts, as to members of families of members of the Occupation Forces, thus bringing them under the jurisdiction of the occupation courts.
"Except when expressly authorized, either generally or in specific cases, by the High Commissioner of the Zone in which the Court is located, German Courts shall not exercise criminal jurisdiction:"
"(a)(i) Over the allied Forces. . . ."
16. December 28, 1949 (Effective January 1, 1950). -- Occupation courts were changed.
" The Courts so created shall be known as the United States Courts of the Allied High Commission for Germany."
Petitioner, a United States citizen, is now serving a fifteen-year sentence for murdering her husband. At the time of the alleged crime, she was living in the United States Area of Control in Germany with her husband, who was an Air Force lieutenant on active duty in Germany. It appears that the court that tried her and the law she was judged by were not established or authorized by the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary