CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DENIED BY MICHIGAN'S "ONE-MAN GRAND JURY''

Authors

Robert J. Nordstrom, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Petitioner was summoned to appear as a witness before one of Oakland County's judges who was then acting in the capacity of "one-man grand juror." This proceeding was attended only by petitioner, the judge grand juror, and two other circuit judges acting as advisers to the latter. The purpose was to investigate alleged misconduct on the part of law-enforcing officials through the acceptance of bribes in the form of sales of worthless "bonds" on pin-ball machines. Petitioner admitted purchasing these "bonds" but could. not recall just what he had done with them when they had expired. Concluding that the petitioner's answers were evasive and that his story did not "jell" the judge immediately charged petitioner with contempt, convicted him, and sentenced him to jail-all without leaving the room. With only a part of the testimony on record the Supreme Court of Michigan denied the petitioner's motion for habeas corpus by an evenly divided court. On certiorari, held, reversed, two justices dissenting. Such a conviction is unconstitutional as a denial of due process. In re William Oliver, (U.S. 1948) 68 S.Ct. 499·

Recommended Citation

Robert J. Nordstrom, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DENIED BY MICHIGAN'S "ONE-MAN GRAND JURY'', 46 Mich. L. Rev. 979 (1948).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol46/iss7/10