Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
· 5/14/1894

McKane v. Durston

Citations

  • 153 U.S. 684
  • 14 S. Ct. 913
  • 38 L. Ed. 867
  • 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2213

Syllabus

<p>In the State of New York the committal to prison of a person convicted of crime, without giving him an opportunity, pending an appeal, to furnish bail, is in conformity with the laws of that State when no certificate is furnished by the judge who presided at the trial or by a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State, that in his opinion there is reasonable doubt whether the judgment should stand; and such committal under such circumstances violates no provision of the Constitution of the United States.</p> <p>An appeal to a higher court from a judgment of conviction is not a matter of absolute right, independently of constitutional or statutory provisions allowing it, and a State may accord it to a person convicted of crime upon such terms as it thinks proper.</p>

About this case

McKane v. Durston

McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (1894), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the appellant, John McKane, had no federal constitutional right to an appeal. They held that state courts had the right to grant appellate review at their discretion.

Contents

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McKane_v._Durston&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

According to the opinion, which provides a short history, John McKane was charged and convicted of violating "certain provisions of the law ... relating to elections and to the registration of voters." He was sentenced to six years of hard labor at Sing Sing prison, on February 19, 1894. The lawyer representing McKane then filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. The circuit court denied the appeal, so the Supreme Court asserted jurisdiction, citing that constitutional questions of the validity of the incarceration were present. McKane also asked for bail while his appeal was ongoing.[1]

Opinion of the Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McKane_v._Durston&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")

The Fuller Court .

The opinion, delivered by Justice Harlan , dismissed the claim of due process under the Fifth Amendment since this amendment's due process requirement did not apply to the states. Harlan noted that this claim was probably an accident of the attorney who prepared the petition. He noted that the due process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment was also not violated, since this is the due process that applies to the states.

Code Cr. Proc. N. Y. § 555 stated that the trial court to which the habeas corpus petition was presented may rule in favor of granting him bail while the appeal was proceeding, and the opinion mentions that this means that the initial trial court had discretion to grant or deny bail. Since the circuit court denied bail, the opinion stated this was consistent with New York law, so that decision was not before the court to review.

The Court concluded by affirming the judgment of the circuit court which denied the habeas corpus petition.

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McKane_v._Durston&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: References")

  1. ↑ McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (1894).

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McKane_v._Durston&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McKane_v._Durston&oldid=1330674554 "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the Constitution does not require a state to afford a criminal defendant a direct appeal
  • holding that the Constitution does not require a state to afford a criminal defendant a direct appeal
  • holding that there is no right to an appeal in a criminal case under the Due Process Clause
  • stating that the right to appeal is not a necessary element of due process of law
  • stating that the right to appeal is not a necessary element of due process of law
  • stating that the right to appeal is not a necessary element of due process of law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harlan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.