Jones v. Cunningham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Jones v. Cunningham | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Argued December 3, 1962 Decided January 14, 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 ; 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 Marshall Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Arthur Goldberg |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Black |
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 to challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment. Prior to this, starting with Pervear v. Massachusetts, , 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.[1]
Contents |
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Constitutional Topic: The Bill of Rights. U.S. Constitution Online. Retrieved on 2007-12-10.
[edit] 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:.
[edit] External links
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
