• Last updated on November 11, 2022

The Supreme Court refused federal relief for a defendant convicted of murder in state court under conditions of mob intimidation.

When Leo Frank, a JewishJews;discrimination against capitalist, was tried in Georgia for the murder of a young woman, a large anti-Semitic mob intimidated the jury as it reached a guilty verdict. Almost all observers agreed that the trial did not conform to the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Based on traditional notions of federalism, nevertheless, the federal district court rejected Frank’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Speaking for the 7-2 majority, Justice Mahlon Pitney upheld and defended the lower court’s hesitancy to intervene in a state criminal proceeding. Several years later, the Court in Moore v. Dempsey[case]Moore v. Dempsey[Moore v. Dempsey] (1923) agreed to grant habeas corpus relief for defendants convicted in a similar mob-dominated trial. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dissented in Frank and wrote the majority opinion in Moore.Jury, trial by;Frank v. Mangum[Frank v. Mangum]Habeas corpus[Habeas corpus]

Writing for the majority in Frank v. Malloy, Justice Mahlon Pitney upheld the lower court's hesitancy to intervene in a state criminal proceeding.

(Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States)

Due process, procedural

Federalism

Habeas corpus

Moore v. Dempsey

Review, process of

Categories: History Content