Document: 332 U.S. 174 67 S.Ct. 1588 91 L.Ed. 1982 SUNALv.LARGE. ALEXANDER v. UNITED STATES ex rel. KULICK. Nos. 535, 840. Argued April 11, 1947. Decided June 23, Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, See 68 29. Mr. Irving S. Shapiro, of Washington, D.C., for Myrl Alexander and David R. Large. Hayden Covington, Brooklyn, N.Y., John Myron Kulick Theodore Martin Sunal. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 Sunal registered under Selective Training Service Act 1940, 54 Stat. 885, 57 597, 50 U.S.C.App. § 301 et seq., U.S.C.A. Appendix, seq. Each is a Jehovah's Witness each claimed exemption granted by Congress to regular or duly ordained ministers religion.1 5(d). The local boards, after proceedings unnecessary relate here, denied exemptions classified these registrants as I—A. They exhausted their administrative remedies but were unable effect change in classifications. Thereafter they ordered report induction on October 25, 1944, November 9, 1944. reported refused submit induction. was thereupon indicted, tried convicted 11 refusing sentenced March 22, 1945, May 7, imprisonment term years. Neither appealed. 2 At trial offered evidence show that his selective service classification invalid. courts held, however, such inadmissible, final not open attack criminal trial. On February 4, 1946, we decided Estep United States Smith Unitd States, 327 114, 66 423, 90 567. These cases2 held comparable facts registrant, who had thus obviated rule Falbo 320 549, 64 346, 88 305, entitled, when defend ground board exceeded its jurisdiction making classification—for example, it no basis fact. at pages 122, 123, page 427, 3 It plain, therefore, erred denying defense which tendered. Shortly cases decided, petitions writs habeas corpus filed behalf Kulick. In case an available remedy. Sunal's Circuit Court Appeals Fourth there fact affirmed judgment discharging writ. 157 F.2d 165. Kulick's Second reversed District holding support classification, F.Supp. 183, ruled, without examining evidence, since been deprived he should be discharged from custody prejudice further prosecution. Cir., 811. are here certiorari, because importance questions presented. 4 normal customary method correcting errors appeal. could have taken cases,3 not. cannot said absence counsel made appeals unavailable practical matter. Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 467, 58 1019, 1024, 82 1461, 146 A.L.R. 357. Defendants counsel. Nor any other barrier perfection appeals. Cf. Cochran State Kansas, 316 255, 62 1068, 86 1453. Moreover, this situation where relied dehors record therefore consideration review Waley Johnston, 101, 104, 964, 965, 1302; McCann Adams, 220, 221, 14, 4. And see Adams McCann, 317 269, 274, 275, 63 236, 239, 240, 87 268, 143 435. error case. said, failure appeal excusable, decisions then stood—March 1945—the lower consistently ruled attacked prosecution 11. supra, note 15, 428, also pointed out 30, certiorari sought raise same point,4 brought here5 time passed. argument state law seem futile, would unfair those conclude them 5 We put one side problems respecting use federal challenge convictions obtained courts. People New York Eno, 155 89, 15 39 80; Tinsley Anderson, 171 104—105, 18 805, 807, 43 91; Kennedy Tyler, 269 46 1, 70 138; Ex parte Hawk, 321 116, 117, 448, 449, 450, 572. So far concerned, general writ will allowed do There been, some exceptions. That say, has times entertained either adequacy relief appellate route afforded adequate Illustrative instances conviction statute alleged unconstitutional,6 court whose over person offense challenged,7 sentence violated specific constitutional guaranties.8 designed collateral committed court—the existence conviction,9 irregularities grand jury procedure,10 departure statutory grant prepare trial,11 procedure cross jurisdictional line. Craig Hecht, 263 44 103, 293. 6 Yet latter absolute one; situations done re exc eptions. Thus challenged constitutionality increasingly correction error.12 Yet, hand, flagrant remedy correction, sometimes granted.13 As stated Chief Hughes Bowen 306 19, 27, 59 442, 446, 83 455, requires resort 'is defining power relates appropriate exercise power.' is, 'not so inflexible may yield exceptional circumstances need apparent.' Id., 446. deemed involve 'exceptional circumstances' reason indicated 'a conflict between authorities question involving concerns large affecting respective jurisdictions.' accordingly examine into render conviction. 7 course followed Hudgings, 249 378, 337, 656, 333, petitioner adjudged guilty contempt committing perjury. did require pursue issued original him, perjury more punishable contempt. view 'the nature case, relation involves bears generally duty performance functions, dangerous liberty citizen called upon witness might result if erroneous doctrine order based promptly corrected * *.' 384, 340. supra. 8 thought present likewise presented justified though taken. seemed quite futile. 9 But denial earlier imported expression merits. House Mayo, 324 42, 48, 65 517, 521, 89 739, cited. chief represented defendants casesand cases. pending before petition was, indeed, about two weeks month road took. Why legal strategy counseled taking know. Perhaps For Court; pressing decision here. changed expired. Warring Colpoys, 74 App.D.C. 303, 122 642, 136 1025. rather definitive ruling crystallized. Of course, pursued failed, different. chose had, think now justify saying 10 dealing with problem radiations beyond persons offense. excluding go court. Congress, moreover, provided regular, orderly all granting Courts vesting us jurisdiction. uncommon ended passed discover shift impact new given increased relevance point If circumstances, used correct error, become delayed motion trial, renewed climate changed. Error sufficiently warrant acquire implications. Every potentially reversible error; many rulings spell difference acquittal. accept can later renew corpus, litigation interminable. Wise judicial administration counsels against least does trench rights nor An endeavor magnify trials proportions asserting refusal proffered robbed vitality depriving only real defense. much during received throughout opportunity heard enjoyed procedural guaranties Constitution. infect lack due process. Cardozo Escoe 295 490, 494, 55 818, 820, 79 1566, 'When hearing conducting limiting scope, When altogether, ensuing mandate void, prisoner confined thereunder recourse end restraint.' 12 contrary position following statement 124, 125, 13 'But hold registrant tral premises, way him corpus. sending men jail today apparent released tomorrow.' 14 alternative pressed us—that defense, concluded lie moment violating illegal board, like unconstitutional statute, stage establish existed, remedy.14 additional allowing prosecuted defending resorting obtaining right prosecutions ground. it. find excuse failure, substitute. Accordingly Large reversed. Affirmed case; another. 16 ordered. 17 BURTON concurs result. FRANKFURTHER (dissenting). 19 well-worn formula. generalization dispose cases, actualities viewed light our decisions. 20 First Judiciary empowered issue Section September 24, 1789, 73, 81, 28 451 Since scope defined carried common-law greatly enlarged Civil War 5, 1867. 385. (For legislation Note F. 68.) longer limited searching face competent cut through forms 'to very tissue structure,' Holmes Frank Mangum, 237 309, 345, 35 582, 595, 969, certainly invoked merely substitute what 'form' 'tissue justice, give dubious confused answers. I fair say untidy area calls systematic than received. 21 extent left itself unhampered, drawing sharp lines, tentative categories entertain: 22 (1) Conviction Watkins, Pet. 193, 203, 650; Parks, 93 18, 23 787. discretionary even want established. Toy Hopkins, 212 542, 29 416, 53 644, Rodman Pothier, 264 399, 360, 75 9. compare Mayfield, 141 107, 939, 635, Blackbird, C.C., 541. (2) statute. Virginia, 100 339, 343, 25 676; Siebold, 371, 717; Curtis, 106 381, 27 232; Yarbrough, 110 651, 152, 274. Here too availability depend particularly sought. Hoy, 227 245, 33 497; Henry Henkel, 235 219, 54, 203. Compare Glasgow Moyer, 225 420, 32 753, 56 1147 Matter Gregory, 219 210, 31 143, 184. Lincoln, 202 178, 26 602, 984. 24 (3) Violation rights: (a) double jeopardy. Bigelow, 113 328, 1005 Snow, 120 556, 30 658, Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 176, 672, 118; (b) self-incrimination. Writ contempt, apparently defendant restrained charge crime. Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 1110 Irvine, 954 (Taft, Judge), Moran, 203 96, 51 105; (c) indictment jury. Wilson, 114 417, 935, 89. Also Bain, 121 781, 849. courts, Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 265, 543. (4) Due regard harmonious Nation-State relations, avoid friction maintain balance. Rowland, 104 604, 861; Ayers, 123 443, 164, 216; Sawyer, 124 200, 482, 402; 455. 149 785, 37 689; Swan, 150 637, 225, 1207; Young, 209 441, 52 714, L.R.A.,N.S., 932, Ann.Cas. 764. Availability important factor. Similarly interference officers, prompt necessary. Ohio Thomas, 173 276, 453, 699. Neagle, 135 34 55; Hunter Wood, 205, 472, 747. (5) Insufficiency indictments corpus; removal hardship individual inadequacy remedies. Treat, 205 20, 430, Hyde Shine, 199 62, 760, 90. extradition Benson McMahon, 127 457, 1240, 234; Ornelas Ruiz, 161 502, 689, 40 787; Bryant 167 744, 42 94. (6) Defects panel, procedure, exclusion insufficiency rarely appeared flagrant, relief. 689. (7) Legality conditions confinement. Lange, Wall. 163, 872; Bonner, 151 242, 323, 38 149. (8) Contempt 340, 333. Compare, Savin, 267, 699, 150, Cuddy, 280, 703 154. sufficient remedy, 293, Judge Learned Hand's dissenting Craig, 282 138, 155. well historic purpose furnish swift imperative restraint,' Lord Birkenhead, L.C., Secretary Home Affairs O'Brien, (1923) A.C. 603, 609, fluid free definiteness ordinary doctrines. leave pertaining unsystematized condition it, believe true both Hand necessary prevent complete miscarriage justice.' 811, 813. justification definite circumstances,' reasons compelling uncertainty confusion whether offenses within National Park triable courts.' set forth opinion, 'would pass demands diligence appeal.' agree consider merits, shall abstain doing so. RUTLEDGE am agreement FRANKFURTER substantially views expresses. modify certain tentatively expressed conclusion great rigidities characterizing Hand, sum decisions,1 regardless variety opinions, drawn available, determine points jurisdiction, stricti juris, questions; whenever else my law, measured applicable statute,2 aggregate results demonstrates law. Confusion opinions quantity. arises part effort pin down special, all-inclusive categories, unless office diluted destroyed happen. limitation assertion gives tothe necess ity achieving writ's collide. Admirable toward system, last human choice tolerating wrongful deprivation maintaining systematist's art. 36 clearly fundamental justice presently available. Beside executing object, preservation personal assurance deprivation, considerations economy procedures, undoubtedly are, comparatively insignificant.3 This applies past foreclosed, others ever afforded. prevailing state, few errors, lesser gravity, timely taken, disclosing constituting arise criterion, instances, less number comprehended decisions, Taken literally, formula often repeated, appeal, every asserted appeal.4 obvious validity sense readily overturning determinations securing specification matters going make gross justice. shut off functioning where, alone, issue, seems meto prescri system forfeitures prevail. Certainly basic harmful, cause liberty, wrongfully denied. apply special force, exclusively, good brief allowed.5 Whether inferior decision6 ruling, remains broadly defenses tendered.7 hardly chance circuit bring action.8 chances reversal hung almost exclusively doubtful, slender,9 certiorari. 41 substantial defense.10 forecloses defend, valid purpose, conclusive takes place try offense, sets lawfully prescribed loses accused segment advanced considered. becomes meaningless larger off.11 With reaches others. MURPHY joins dissent. He believes today's unduly narrows process accorded 1940. 555, 349, concurring 1942 conscientious objector work national importance. fine imposed. events concerned discharge prison. 148 288; 28, 1945. 325 846, 1406, 1969. July 6, 768; August 3, 8, 326 703, 52, 414. lay Bridges Wixon, 135, 1443, 2103; Duncan Kahanamoku, 304, 606, 688, Eagles Samuels, 329 313, theagency und er detained subject review. Rinko 851, 1086, 1971. Flakowicz 1971, exhausted, being examination Gibson 338, 301. 2, 274; Coy, 731, 1263, Heff, 197 488, 506, 49 848. 84; Baender Barnett, 255 224, 271, 597. 872 (double jeopardy); 658 (same); 118 (self-incrimination); (requirement indictment); 849 Callan 540, 1301, 223 (jury trial); supra (right counsel); Walker 312 61 574, 85 830 (coerced plea guilty). Harlan McGourin, 218 44, 1101, Harding, 782, 780, 824; Kaizo Henry, 211 146, 41, 125. McMicking Schields, 238 99, 665, 1220. strict 497. 984; 644; 1147. 689 (removal case). weigh accusation entire 84, 764, district violates accused, Haas 216 462, 249, 569, 1112, proposed take Salinger Loisel, 265 519, 989. seriously controverted 759; extends violation Constitution R.S. U.S.C. 453. Including cited Court's FRANKFURTER. 155—159, Habeas Corpus Federal (1935) Col.L.Rev. 404. Rev.Stat. 761, 461, commands court, 'dispose party require.' 330, 331, 588, Holmes, 345 ff., 594, concurred Hughes, afterward wrote Pertinently prisoners 'in treaty States.' res judicata determinations, 105, 966, 1302, although prior application weight. 231, 989, administration. substance contentions entitled hearing, although, appears, expired, e.g., 455; 830; 357; 404, 414, n. 66; already 543; 747; Wo Lee 356, 1064, discussed Courts, 60. Appleyard Massachusetts, 222, 226, 161, 1073; Bridges, Fed.Cas.No.1,862, Woods approved Royall, 117 241, 734, 868. reviewing authorities, said: 'The appellant's attempt rigidly classify exceptions appears me books warrant. A safer somewhat vaguely must occasions necessity.' 156. stating summarized quoted text above, concerning case: occasion bar such; Johnston (see notes supra), within' park 'are Not glimmer positive success, unusual consensus explained inducted wholly remedies; so; distinction established two. Indeed, Flakowicz, (2 874), these, Supreme fortnight 12th,' date 813, 814. infra. 305. containing language emphasizing provide expressly boards' classifications, explicitly intermediate step united continuous army speedily efficiently' that, requirement review, 'Congress required intervention acceptance service.' 553, 554, 348. stated: 'Surely intended authorize challenges orders report, so.' 349. (Emphasis added.) Frankfurter's 139, 435, reference practically nil, previously adversely 874, 5. 288, afterwards 567, first question. rendered Although idle claim actual reasonable influence lawyers noted identical discretion exercised, conflict, manner Under applied oaths. No relating regulations, particular Yakus 660, 834, 460 684.

Category: 2