Jones v. Cunningham

Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963), was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment.[1] Prior to this, starting with Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 U.S. 475 (1866),[2] the court had maintained a "hands off" policy regarding federal interference with state incarceration policies and practices, maintaining that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.[3] Subsequently, in Cooper v. Pate (1964),[4] an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ.

Jones v. Cunningham
Argued December 3, 1962
Decided January 14, 1963
Full case nameJones v. Cunningham
Citations371 U.S. 236 (more)
83 S. Ct. 373; 9 L. Ed. 2d 285; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2261
Case history
Prior297 F.2d 851 (4th Cir. 1962); 313 F.2d 347 (4th Cir. 1963)
Holding
A state prisoner who has been placed on parole, under the "custody and control" of a parole board, is "in custody" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and, on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a Federal District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine his charge that his state sentence was imposed in violation of the Federal Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinion
MajorityBlack, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Pervear v. Massachusetts (1867)

References

  1. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963).
  2. Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 U.S. 475 (1866).
  3. "Constitutional Topic: The Bill of Rights". U.S. Constitution Online. Retrieved 2007-12-10.
  4. Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964).

Further reading

  • Gertmenian, Alfred (1963). "Criminal Procedure: The Custody Requirement for Habeas Corpus Relief in the Federal Courts". California Law Review. 51 (1): 228–232. doi:10.2307/3478912.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.