Today in Supreme Court History: May 9

Andersen v. United States, 170 U.S. 481 (decided May 9, 1898): Upholding conviction of sailor for shooting crewmember and pushing him overboard. Technical defects in indictment (unclear whether death due to shooting or drowning, does not mention location) held to be harmless error.

Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (decided May 9, 1955): sentence for Mann Act offense should not be doubled for transporting two women instead of one, due to ambiguity in statute

Havnor v. New York, 170 U.S. 408 (decided May 9, 1898): Court could not review conviction under New York law (for practicing “barbering” on Sunday) because Writ of Error was signed by an Associate Judge of New York’s highest court instead of the Chief Judge as required by federal jurisdictional statute.

Gacy v. Page, 511 U.S. 1079 (decided May 9, 1994): denying stay of execution of John Wayne Gacy; dissent by Blackmun restating belief that death penalty is always unconstitutional

Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70 (decided May 9, 1955): Earlier grant of certiorari, and decision on the merits, 348 U.S. 880 (1954) (as to mental distress to widow due to refusal to bury husband in Native American cemetery) vacated because Court belatedly alerted to existing statute which mooted the issue presented. We’re not told more about this, but note the Court’s casual handwave as to the carelessness of both itself and the attorneys: “Though the statute was in existence at the time the case first came here, it was then not seen in proper focus because it was blanketed by the issues of state action and constitutional power for which our interest was enlisted.” IOW, the lazy attorney’s “I didn’t focus in on that” excuse.

United States ex rel. Johnson v. Shaughnessy, 336 U.S. 806 (decided May 9, 1949): order denying admission of immigrant as “mental defective” vacated and remanded; medical appeal board did not conduct its own examination as required by regulation

Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (decided May 9, 2024): Due Process requires hearing on whether car can be forfeited after crime but not preliminary hearing to determine whether police can hold onto vehicle in the meantime (Ms. Culley’s car was seized after she lent it to her son who transported marijuana)