|
|
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949)
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.
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949)
MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, dissenting.
A combination of factors in this case impels me to dissent.
Petitioner was convicted of murder by a jury, and sentenced to death by the judge. The jury which heard the trial unanimously recommended life imprisonment as a suitable punishment for the defendant. They had observed him throughout the trial, had heard all the evidence adduced against him, and, in spite of the shocking character of the crime of which they found him guilty, were unwilling to decree that his life should be taken. In our criminal courts, the jury sits as the representative of the community; its voice is that of the society against which the crime was committed. A judge, even though vested with statutory authority to do so, should hesitate indeed to increase the severity of such a community expression.
He should be willing to increase it, moreover, only with the most scrupulous regard for the rights of the defendant. The record before us indicates that the judge exercised his discretion to deprive a man of his life in reliance on material made available to him in a probation report consisting almost entirely of evidence that would have been inadmissible at the trial. Some, such as allegations of prior crimes, was irrelevant. Much was incompetent as hearsay. All was damaging, and none was subject to scrutiny by the defendant.
Due process of law includes at least the idea that a person accused of crime shall be accorded a fair hearing through all the stages of the proceedings against him. I agree with the Court as to the value and humaneness of liberal use of probation reports as developed by modern penologists, but, in a capital case, against the unanimous recommendation of a jury, where the report would concededly not have been admissible at the trial, and was not subject to examination by the defendant, I am forced to conclude that the high commands of due process were not obeyed.
Contents:
Chicago: Murphy, "Murphy, J., Dissenting," Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) in 337 U.S. 241 337 U.S. 253. Original Sources, accessed May 11, 2025, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4MKYNZBCUXIXVJH.
MLA: Murphy. "Murphy, J., Dissenting." Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949), in 337 U.S. 241, page 337 U.S. 253. Original Sources. 11 May. 2025. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4MKYNZBCUXIXVJH.
Harvard: Murphy, 'Murphy, J., Dissenting' in Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949). cited in 1949, 337 U.S. 241, pp.337 U.S. 253. Original Sources, retrieved 11 May 2025, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4MKYNZBCUXIXVJH.
|