Brede v. Powers
Headline: Prohibition conviction upheld: Court affirms $500 fine and 60-day jail term, finding short county imprisonment is not an 'infamous' crime that requires a grand jury indictment.
Holding: The Court held that the prosecution and sixty-day jail sentence under the National Prohibition Act did not make the offense an "infamous crime" requiring a grand jury indictment, so the habeas petition was properly denied and conviction affirmed.
- Confirms short Prohibition sentences in county jails don't automatically require a grand jury indictment.
- Leaves the $500 fine and 60-day jail sentence standing in this case.
- Limits claims that state jail work rules convert short terms into 'hard labor' punishments.
Summary
Background
A man was convicted under Section 21 of the National Prohibition Act, fined $500, and sentenced to sixty days in the Essex County, New Jersey, jail after a June 17, 1920 conviction. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the crime was "infamous" under the Fifth Amendment and therefore required a grand jury presentment rather than prosecution by information. The lower court discharged the writ and the decision was appealed to the Court.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the offense and the sentence made the crime "infamous," meaning it required a grand jury indictment. The Court reviewed prior decisions defining an infamous crime as one subject to hard labor or penitentiary confinement. The appellant argued federal statutes about where prisoners may be held and New Jersey jail rules made his county jail term effectively hard labor. The Court rejected this view, holding the statute’s maximum punishments did not authorize hard labor or penitentiary confinement and New Jersey law did not mandate hard labor as punishment.
Real world impact
The Court concluded the sentence was not an infamous crime and that the habeas writ was properly discharged, so the conviction and short jail term stood. The opinion explains how federal rules about where prisoners serve time and state jail practices apply to short federal sentences. This ruling resolves the claim in this case but does not broadly change other, unrelated rules.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices, McReynolds and Brandeis, concurred in the result of the decision.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?