Can anyone explain the mechanics of habeas corpus to me?

Factual Questions
1

Given this link, I’m now starting to question my understanding of this right.

As I understand it, the right of habeas corpus means that an imprisioned person is to be brought to a ‘speedy trial’. I don’t question this right, but I’m not sure I completely understand it.

[CITE]

. [/CITE]

I have to admit, that after reading my father’s book, this is one of the most factually-based interpretations of the US Constitutions I have ever read, and I base a lot of my opinions off it.

My question is this: I understand that a criminal in today’s day and time, take John Mohammed for example, by this early publication can demand an arraignment. Is that as far as it goes? Does he have a say in exactly when a day and time is scheduled for him?

I consider the case of some folks (such as Michael Jackson) that may not even have charges brought to him until mid-to-late December. Who is to say when charges will be brought, if any? While not specifically charged at this point, for the sake of argument, what if it takes years to bring charges against him [sub]and I understand the ‘statues of limiatations’ for certain crimes[/sub]?

Bottom line, I understand that an unnarraigned prisoner has rights, but is there any say on the unimprisioned (i.e. ‘free on bail’) accused to bring about an arraignment or trial?

Tripler
Hell of a long story, but I am curious. Supposing I get caught on . . . never mind. :smiley:

2

To amend my original questoion: Capt Yee was held on suspicion on one charge, but apparently faces another. Does habeas corpus apply since it’s one charge versus another?

Tripler
I got so lost in my OP, I didn’t make this, my original question, clear.

3

I don’t know if your “Capt. Yee” is a hypothetical or some real person in the news that I’m not aware of. If he’s a soldier on active duty, that could affect the answer. Assume for purposes of this answer that he is a civilian and not in a war zone of some sort so that habeas corpus is not suspended.

You may need to clarify the question some more. There’s nothing wrong with arresting a person on one charge, and then changing the charge later or adding other charges based on the available evidence. None of this, however, has anything to do with habeas corpus.

Most often, habeas corpus is used by persons who have already been tried and convicted in state court. They attempt to get released by a federal court by claiming that the state court proceeding denied their federal constitutional rights in some way. Your question apparently deals with someone who hasn’t been convicted of anything, right?

4

Capt. Yee is (was?) an Islamic chaplain for the U.S. Army who was accused of passing information to prisoners held at Guantanamo. Given the arguments over the questionable legality of much that is going on there, Yee’s may very well be a ‘special case’ that doesn’t apply to an ordinary civilian.

5

The government cannot unlawfully detain a citizen. A writ of habeas corpus is the process by which a court commands the government to give a lawful reason for detaining a prisoner. There are various lawful reasons that the government can show, the simplest of which is that the prisoner is incarcerated as the result of being convicted of a crime and remanded to the government’s custody for the purpose of serving out his or her sentence. Post-conviction habeas relief therefore attacks the validity of the conviction or the sentence. Another lawful reason is that the prisoner is being charged with a crime. A pre-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus therefore suggests that the government is not actually proceeding with a prosecution and is just detaining the prisoner for some other purpose unlawfully. If the government cannot show that it has some lawful reason for detaining the prisoner, then the court orders the prisoner freed.

6

Forgot to add the link with some background info on this case.

7

Hijack alert!

On an old (there are new?) “LA Law”, one of the characters was on an airliner, on the ground, going nowhere, and the pilot refused to allow him to leave. In the show, his partner(s) got a Writ served to the airline, forcing them to return the plane to the gate, where our hero departed (and was arrested for interfering with the operation of an airplane, but that’s another subject).

Q: Habeas Corpus can be applied to non-govenment individuals, and entities, right? My employer can’t really lock me up, etc.?

8

So where exactly does ‘bail’ fit into this, then? I would assume that anyone accused of a crime by the government may be booked and jailed by due process. Does habeas corpus demand a bail amount, or is that process set by something else?

Scenarion #1: Say I get booked for murder. For sake of arguement, I am not arraigned. Can I invoke habeas corpus at the day after I’m held?

Scenario #2: If I get picked up on Monday for murder, arraigned and indicted on Tuesday for the same charge, can I claim habeas corpus? (I assume not, since I’ve been provided a charge).

I fully understand that in rebellion and insurrection a guy or gal can be held indefinitely. My other question is that has this been invoked in the 20th century at some point?

Tripler
I’m totally curious! I’d be a lawyer, but this darn uniform keeps me in line. :smiley:

9

I am not a lawyer, but in this particular example (as with any carjacking), I would say “NO!” and toss the keys out the window. Nowadays, all the pilot has to do is ‘squawk’ “Aw shit!!” and any airport will bend over backwards to take care of anything, post 9/11.

Tripler
I know airliners don’t have ‘keys’ per se, but you get my drift.

10

(IANAL, and no doubt BrianMelendez or some other lawyer will be along soon with more detailed answers.)

Basically, habeas corpus says they have to tell you why they are detaining you – either charge you with a crime or release you within a reasonable time.

Court rules vary, but a “reasonable time” is generally something like 48 hours. Or maybe 72 hours, if it happens to be a 3-day weekend. (Basically, by the next working day for the relevant court. )

So in Scenario #1, no, not the next day. But probably the day after. Depends on the local court’s rules on this.

But in Scenario #2, you have been “arraigned and indicted”, so your habeas corpus rights are gone – they have charged you with a crime, so you know why you are being detained. Now you can apply for bail, which is a whole separate legal matter.

P.S. in your original post, I think that the right to “a speedy trial” is a separate right from habeas corpus.

11

Explain habeas corpus to you…Jesus.

Okay, dig this: the WRIT. A writ was/is a command of the king. The British royal court traditionally asserted its authority through the “writ”, a written order in the king’s name commanding that some action be undertaken or witheld. In the time of Henry, this writ took a formula called the writ Pracecipa, forsooth, to wit:

“The king to the sheriff, greeting. Command Tripler. to render to pravnik, justly and without delay, one hide of land in such-and-such a vill, which the said p. complains that the aforesaid T. is withholding from him. If he does not do so, summon him by good summoners to be before me or my justices on the day after the octave of Easter, to show why he has not done so. And have there the summoners and this writ. Witness biblio phagill at chicaago”

And so forth. Writs in modern jurisprudence are generally court directions of varying urgency to do or stop doing something. The most important are writs of mandamus (a direction to a lower court that isn’t acting legally), writ of injunction (which commands a party to act or cease to act in a certain way), or our friend the writ of habeas corpus, the foremost fundamental writ of Magna Carta due process, god save the Queen, hey, where’s that guy you imprisoned for treason twenty years ago?

Habeas corpus means liteally “you will bring the body”. If one person is in the custody of another, a writ of habeas corpus commands that the custodian come before the court to show why the custody is lawful. On a mundane level, habeas corpus guarantees that a custodial parent or guardian may be commanded to come before the court to show that custody is lawful. On a much more profound level, a prison warden may be ordered to show why a prisoner is lawfully being held for execution due to constitutional issues surrounding that persons trial or holding.

Habeas corpus was viewed as one of the most fundamental freedoms to be guaranteed by the Constitution; U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9: holds that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” So, habeas proceedings may determine any custodial issue from a child who is not in the legal custody of a parent all the way to that of a condemned prisoner in government cusody who may have had an unconstitutional trial.

12

On the L.A.Law episode “The Plane Mutiny,” Douglas Brackman sued an airline for his getting stuck on the runway, unable to disembark, during a long delay. The relief that Brackman sought was an injunction ordering that the plane return to the terminal and let the passengers disembark. An injunction is a judicial command that a party do, or refrain from doing, some specified act. The episode did not involve a writ of habeas corpus.

And no, your employer can’t lawfully lock you up, unless you are engaged in some criminal activity and the company is using reasonable force for the purpose of holding you until the police arrive.

13

No need – excellent answer, t-bonham@scc.net.

I’m with you, pravnik.