|
|
Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.
I concur with most of what is said in the Court’s opinion, but cannot concur in its judgment.
I wholly agree that Rule 33 is inapplicable to habeas corpus proceedings. Contrary to my Brother HARLAN, I further agree that federal judges in carrying out their duty to dispose of habeas corpus applications "as law and justice require," 28 U.S.C. § 2243, should not be inhibited by inflexibly formalized procedural rules. In getting at the facts in such cases, the district courts should be given wide leeway for "discretion to exercise their common sense." Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495.*
However, for the reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE HARLAN’s dissenting opinion today in Kaufman v. United States, ante, p. 242, which I have joined, I would affirm the judgment in the present case.
Contents:
Chicago: Stewart, "Stewart, J., Dissenting," Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969) in 394 U.S. 286 394 U.S. 308. Original Sources, accessed April 26, 2024, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PBJP8Q4WSQGG2QF.
MLA: Stewart. "Stewart, J., Dissenting." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969), in 394 U.S. 286, page 394 U.S. 308. Original Sources. 26 Apr. 2024. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PBJP8Q4WSQGG2QF.
Harvard: Stewart, 'Stewart, J., Dissenting' in Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969). cited in 1969, 394 U.S. 286, pp.394 U.S. 308. Original Sources, retrieved 26 April 2024, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PBJP8Q4WSQGG2QF.
|