EX PARTE MILLIGAN 71 U.S. 2 (1866) CASE BRIEF

EX PARTE MILLIGAN

71 U.S. 2 (1866)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a certification of questions over whether a writ of habeas corpus can issue and whether military tribunals can try a civilian during a time of war when the courts of a state were sitting and open.

FACTS: Lamdin P. Milligan, (P) a citizen of the United States, and a resident and citizen of the State of Indiana, was arrested on the 5th day of October, 1864, at his home by the order of Brevet Major-General Hovey, military commandant of the District of Indiana, and confined in a military prison at or near Indianapolis, the capital of the State. He was placed on trial before a 'military commission,' convened at Indianapolis, by order of the said General, upon the following charges, preferred by Major Burnett, Judge Advocate of the Northwestern Military Department, namely: 1. 'Conspiracy against the Government of the United States;' 2. 'Affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States;' 3. 'Inciting insurrection;' 4. 'Disloyal practices;' and 5. 'Violation of the laws of war.' P insisted that the military had no jurisdiction over him. P was found guilty on all the charges, and sentenced to suffer death by hanging, and this sentence, having been approved, he was ordered to be executed on Friday, the 19th of May, 1865. On the 10th of May P filed his petition in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, by which, or by the documents appended to which as exhibits, the above facts appeared. P stated that a grand jury of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana was convened at Indianapolis, his said place of confinement, and duly empaneled, charged, and sworn for said district, held its sittings, and finally adjourned without having found any bill of indictment, or made any presentment whatever against him. That at no time had he been in the military service of the United States, or in any way connected with the land or naval force, or the militia in actual service; nor within the limits of any State whose citizens were engaged in rebellion against the United States, at any time during the war, but, during all the time aforesaid, and for twenty years last past, he had been an inhabitant, resident, and citizen of Indiana. At the hearing of the petition in the Circuit Court, the opinions of the judges were opposed upon the following questions: I. On the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, ought a writ of habeas corpus to be issued according to the prayer of said petitioner? II. On the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, ought the said Milligan to be discharged from custody as in said petition prayed? III. Whether, upon the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, the military commission had jurisdiction legally to try and sentence said Milligan in manner and form, as in said petition and exhibit is stated? These questions were certified to the Supreme Court. An additional question was raised in the court, namely: IV. A question of jurisdiction, as -- 1. Whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear the case there presented? -- 2. Whether the case sent up here by certificate of division was so sent up in conformity with the intention of the act of 1802? in other words, whether this court had jurisdiction of the questions raised by the certificate?

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner