View source for Irvin v. Dowd

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Irvin v. Dowd
  |ArgueDate=January 15
  |ArgueYear=1959
  |DecideDate=May 4
  |DecideYear=1959
  |FullName=Leslie Irvin, Petitioner, v. Alfred F. Dowd, Warden of the Indiana State Prison
  |USVol=359
  |USPage=394
  |ParallelCitations=79 S. Ct. 825; 3 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 900
  |Prior=Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies does not bar resort to federal habeas corpus if the petitioner has obtained a decision on his constitutional claims from the highest court of a State, even though that court could have based its decision on another ground.
  |Majority=Brennan
  |JoinMajority=Warren, Black, Douglas, Stewart
  |Concurrence=Stewart
  |Dissent=Frankfurter
  |Dissent2=Harlan
  |JoinDissent2=Frankfurter, Clark, Whittaker
  |LawsApplied={{usc|28|2254}}
}}
'''''Irvin v. Dowd''''', 359 U.S. 394 (1959), was a [[United States Supreme Court]] case.<ref name="supreme.justia.com">{{ussc|name=Irvin v. Dowd|359|394|1959}}.</ref> It involved the denial of appeal of an escaped convict, [[Leslie Irvin (serial killer)|Leslie Irvin]]. The convict sought a federal [[writ of habeas corpus]].

''Irvin v. Dowd'' was one of the first of many cases to underscore the "swing vote" role played by Justice [[Potter Stewart]], who recently had come to the Supreme Court and was caught between the two warring camps of justices: the liberal camp of Justices [[Earl Warren]] and [[William J. Brennan, Jr.|William Brennan]] and the conservative camp headed by Justice [[Felix Frankfurter]].<ref>{{Citation |last=Eisler |first=Kim Isaac |year=1993 |title=A Justice for All: William J. Brennan, Jr., and the decisions that transformed America |page=[https://archive.org/details/justiceforallwil00eisl/page/159 159] |location=New York |publisher=Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-0-671-76787-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/justiceforallwil00eisl/page/159}}</ref>

==Factual background==
The ''Irvin'' case centered on a series of murders in [[Evansville, Indiana]], from 1954 to early 1955.<ref name="Eisler, 159" /> In April 1955, local police arrested Leslie Irvin, announcing he had confessed to the crimes.<ref name="Eisler, 159">{{Harvnb|Eisler|1993|page=159}}.</ref> Irvin's lawyers sought a change of venue for the case to avoid local biases, but they lost; a third of the jury was seated despite statements showing they had prejudged the defendant to be guilty.<ref name="Eisler, 159"/> Irvin was sentenced to death in January 1956; he soon escaped from jail, leaving a note maintaining his innocence and alleging police misconduct and public prejudging of his case, as well as asking his lawyer to appeal.<ref>{{Harvnb|Eisler|1993|pages=159–160}}.</ref> Irvin was soon recaptured, and the Indiana Supreme Court would reject his motions for appeals.<ref name="Eisler, 160">{{Harvnb|Eisler|1993|p=160}}.</ref>

Irvin's lawyer came to the Supreme Court asking for a writ of habeas corpus.<ref name="Eisler, 160"/>

==Legal issues==
The case came to the Supreme Court to decide the question of whether Irvin's escaping from custody forfeited his right to appeal.<ref name="Eisler, 160"/> Beyond that, the justices on the court prone to [[judicial restraint]] (Frankfurter, Harlan, Clark, and Whittaker) were usually not supportive of the idea of a federal court issuing a writ of habeas corpus in a state prosecution case.<ref name="Eisler, 160"/> Brennan and Warren were concerned with the jurors who were allowed to sit on the case despite having prejudged the outcome.<ref name="Eisler, 160"/>

Justice Stewart at first felt that court precedent, especially the case of ''[[Brown v. Allen]]'', precluded the Supreme Court from getting involved in the state prosecution.<ref name="Eisler, 161">{{Harvnb|Eisler|1993|p=161}}.</ref> Brennan managed to distinguish the Brown case and convinced Stewart to vote with him, bringing about a 5-4 majority for the liberals.<ref name="Eisler, 161"/> Brennan wrote an opinion forcing the state of Indiana to consider Irvin's appeal on the basis of the jury issue; he did not reach the matter of Irvin's escape.<ref name="Eisler, 161"/>

==Outcome==
Justice Brennan wrote an opinion holding that Irvin's exhaustion of state remedies did not bar a federal court's granting habeas corpus.<ref name="supreme.justia.com"/> Stewart issued a one-line concurrence distinguishing the case from ''Brown v. Allen''.<ref name="supreme.justia.com"/>

The four judges in the minority, Frankfurter's bloc, saw the case as an example of the Court overreaching.<ref name="Eisler, 161"/>  Frankfurter resented the interposition of federal court review over state criminal actions.<ref name="Eisler, 161"/>

==Aftermath==
Though Justice Brennan had begun his Supreme Court career voting with Justice Frankfurter about half the time, the Irvin case marked the end of a meaningful relationship between the two justices.<ref>{{Harvnb|Eisler|1993|pp=160–161, 164 }}.</ref> Frankfurter convinced a distinguished Harvard Law professor, [[Henry M. Hart, Jr.]], to focus on the case in the law school's ''[[Harvard Law Review]]'' as a means of character-assassinating Justice Brennan.<ref>{{Harvnb|Eisler|1993|pp=162–164}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Hart |first=Henry M. Jr. |year=1959 |title=The Supreme Court, 1958 Term |journal=Harvard Law Review |volume=73 |issue=1 |pages=84–240 |doi=10.2307/1337947 |jstor=1337947 }}</ref>

Despite ideological divides, when the case came back to the Supreme Court nearly two years later, the Court managed to write a unanimous opinion again remanding the case to state court, due to the original trial depriving Irvin of Fourteenth Amendment due process.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/366/717/case.html |title=Irvin v. Dowd - 366 U.S. 717 (1961) |publisher=Supreme.justia.com |access-date=June 27, 2013}}</ref> Justice Clark's majority opinion underscored the need for impartiality in the jury: "In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, 'indifferent' jurors."<ref name="ReferenceA"/><ref>{{Citation |title=Criminal Procedure |first=James R. |last=Acker |first2=David C. |last2=Brody |page=528 |year=2004 |publisher=Jones and Bartlett |location=Sudbury, MA |edition=2nd |isbn=978-0-7637-3169-4 }}</ref>

Justice Frankfurter wrote a concurrence on the media and its coverage's way of preventing jurors from delivering impartial verdicts.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* {{caselaw source
 | case = ''Irvin v. Dowd'', {{ussc|359|394|1959|el=no}}
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/359/394/
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep359/usrep359394/usrep359394.pdf
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1958/63
 }}

{{Sixth Amendment|impartial|state=expanded}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Irvin V. Dowd}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Sixth Amendment jury case law]]
[[Category:United States habeas corpus case law]]
[[Category:1959 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court]]