Document: 339 U.S. 103 70 S.Ct. 495 94 L.Ed. 691 HIATT, Warden,v.BROWN. No. 359. Argued Feb. 6—7, 1950. Decided March 13, Rehearing Denied April 17, See 939, 672. Consistent interpretation of Article War by the Army as vesting a discretion in appointing authority to availability member Judge Advocate General's Department for appointment law general court-martial was entitled great weight determination Supreme Court meaning article. Articles War, art. 8, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1479. Exercise conferred on matter designating could be reviewed courts only if gross abuse that would have given rise defect jurisdiction court-martial. Under requiring an officer unless one not available purpose, neither from capacity other than court nor reassignment duty at time trial disclosed discretion. Where had accused and offense murder charged, acted within its lawful powers, correction any errors military authorities it improper Appeals extend review, purpose determining compliance with due process law, such matters propositions set forth Staff Advocate's report, sufficiency evidence sustain conviction, adequacy pretrial investigation, competency defense counsel. arts. 92, §§ 1479, 1564; 28 1254(1); U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5. [Syllabus pages 103-105 intentionally omitted] Mr. Stanley M. Silverberg, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Walter G. Cooper, Atlanta, Ga., respondent. Justice CLARK delivered opinion Court. 1 Respondent, while serving enlisted soldier United States Germany, convicted committing December 25, 1946, violation 92d 41 Stat. 805, U.S.C. 1564, 1564. The sentence imposed dishonorable discharge, forfeiture all pay allowances, life imprisonment, which reduced twenty years upon recommendation General. On petition writ habeas corpus, District Northern Georgia ordered respondent discharged federal penitentiary 81 F.Supp. 647 (1948), Fifth Circuit affirmed, judge dissenting. 175 F.2d 273, 277 (1949). Both concluded tribunal improperly constituted lacked offense. held further record 'replete highly prejudicial irregularities' deprived under Amendment afforded independent ground sustaining writ. We brought case here, warden having custody respondent, view importance decision below administration justice. 1949, 338 890, 239. Our review judgment is 1254(1), 1254(1).1 2 Respondent tried Germany January 9 14, 1947, before been appointed order commanding Continental Base Section, European Theatre, 7, 1946. detail comprised advocate two assistant advocates, counsel counsel, twelve officers. ranking detail, Colonel Field Artillery twenty-five commissioned service, member. captain who designated advocate.2 He absent respondent's verbal orders general. 3 determined these circumstances disregard 8th 788, relevant provision this article force margin.3 interpreted requiring, 'certainly times peace, presence duly qualified made jurisdictional prerequisite validity proceeding, except single instance where actually, fact, 'not available." page 276. conclusively indicated detailing department another without explanation. Thus proceeding void. 4 are unable agree discloses 5 placed below, 'available' he nothing otherwise appeared negative his has construed differently Second Henry v. Hodges, 1948, 171 401. In case, interpretative issue similarly raised second accused. through Learned Hand declared: 6 'There remains * question whether time. cannot say more interest justice Beatty defend Feltman put him court; or better make Swan prosecutor *. whole especially discretion; and, ever reviewable, certainly bar justify review. convenes must decide what membership will least 'injury service,' officers 'available.' 'Available' means presently 'accessible'; demands balance between conflicting spot.' 403. 7 latter intended Congress sound authority. Ordinarily 'availability' personnel subject assignment understood depend discretionary superior. Cf. Kahn Anderson, 1921, 255 1, 224, 65 469; Swaim States, 1897, 165 553, 17 448, 823; Mullan 1891, 140 240, 11 35 489; Martin Mott, 1827, 12 Wheat. 19, 537. Moreover, phrase adopted Article, 'available purpose,' expresses clear intent concept should include exercise authority.4 8 also consistently applied authority, when exercised conclusive accessibility but suitability detailed CM 231963, Hatteberg, 18 B.R. 349, 366—369 (1943); ETO 804, Ogletree, (ETO) 337, 346 209988, Cromwell, 169, 196 (1938); Digest Opinions General (1912—1940) 365(9). This established our ex rel. Hirshberg Cooke, 336 210, 216, 69 530, 533. thus may court-martial.5 However, we need determine relied requirement going court-martial, here involved indicates exercised. Clearly no trial, standard competence legal shown trial. certain committed reviewing process.6 think error extending clause, staff advocate's Humphrey Smith, 695, 830. It well settled 'by corpus civil supervisory correcting power over proceedings inquiry, test, jurisdiction.' re Grimley, 1890, 137 147, 150, 54, 34 636. person powers. alone authorized decision. Application Yamashita, 327 8-9, 66 340, 344, 345, 90 499; supra, 562, 451, 823. results reversed. Reversed. 13 DOUGLAS took part consideration case. 14 BURTON, concurring. 15 I concur clause deals issue, purely directory, jurisdictional. event, calls meeting specifications. either selected specially duties. unavailability merely opens field eligibility branches service. 16 assumed that, appointed, there it. then restricted 'an some branch service (him) perform duties member.' (Emphasis supplied.) If met requirement, jurisdiction. If, however, questioned believe permit used preliminary administrative purpose.' it, even alleged authority's regard grossly abused. That responsibility basis collateral attack competent contends lacks appeals' ordering discharge prisoner affirming order, omission revised Title comparable former 463(c) expressly judgments certiorari. contention merit broad 1254 'Cases appeals (1) By certiorari granted party criminal *.' stated were detail. those mentioned department. 'The shall members thereof member, Department, instead *' amended substantially 62 628 629. note 5, infra. legislative history relating supports interpretation. Prior adoption 1920, did provide impetus reform following World I, original draft became provided every whose similar 'law member,' finally for. proposed qualifications approved Hearings S. 64, Subcommittee Senate Committee Military Affairs, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., p. was, abandoned provisions Article. 366—367 (1943). since February imposes qualification certified 628—629. instances cited Appeals: '(1) Accused theory although sentry offense, incumbent retreat post duty. '(2) does measure malice, premeditation, deliberation. '(3) reveals incompetent. '(4) There pre-trial investigation whatever charge murder. '(5) shows incompetent, gave preparation submitted token defense. '(6) appellate reviews reveal total misconception applicable law.' 277.

Category: 1