Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)

Contents:
Author: Justice Stewart

Show Summary

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:

Related Resources

None available for this document.

Download Options


Title: Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)

Select an option:

*Note: A download may not start for up to 60 seconds.

Email Options


Title: Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)

Select an option:

Email addres:

*Note: It may take up to 60 seconds for for the email to be generated.

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 January 20, 2019, 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. 20 Jan. 2019. 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 20 January 2019, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PBJP8Q4WSQGG2QF.