Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, Sheriff, et al. (329 U.S. 459)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 13, 1947 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 329 U.S. 459 · 67 S. Ct. 374
- Docket
- No. 142
- Argued
- November 18, 1946
- Decided
- January 13, 1947
- Term
- October Term 1946
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Reed
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Reed (wrote), Justice Black
- Concurring in the judgment
- Justice Frankfurter (wrote)
- Dissenting
- Justice Burton (wrote), Justice Douglas, Justice Rutledge, Justice Murphy
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Reed announced the judgment of the Court in an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Jackson join. This writ of certiorari brings before this Court a unique situation. The petitioner, Willie Francis, is a colored citizen of Louisiana. He was duly convicted of murder and in September, 1945, sentenced to be electrocuted for the crime. Upon a proper death warrant, Francis was prepared for execution and on May 3, 1946, pursuant to the warrant, was placed in the official electric chair of the State of Louisiana in the presence of the authorized witnesses. The executioner threw the switch but, presumably because of some mechanical difficulty, death did not result. He was thereupon removed from the chair and returned to prison where he now is. A new death warrant was issued by the Governor of Louisiana, fixing the execution for May 9,1946. Applications to the Supreme Court of the state were filed for writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and habeas corpus, directed to the appropriate officials in the state. Execution of the sentence was stayed. By the applications petitioner claimed the protection of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the ground that an execution under the circumstances detailed would deny due process to him because of the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment and the cruel and unusual…
Excerpt of a 41,252-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.