In Re Yamashita

Background

A Japanese general who commanded forces in the Philippines surrendered on September 3, 1945, and was held by U.S. army forces. He was charged on September 25, 1945, by military order and tried before a military commission from October to December 1945. The commission heard many witnesses, received documentary and hearsay material, convicted him on December 7, 1945, and sentenced him to death.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the commission was lawfully created, whether the charge stated a violation of the law of war, and whether treaty or Army evidence rules barred the proceedings. The majority said the commission was properly convened by military command and that authority to try wartime violations can continue until peace is proclaimed. The charge was read to allege a commander’s failure to control troops who committed atrocities, which the Court found sufficient under the law of war. The Court held that certain Articles of War did not apply to enemy combatants tried under the common law of war and that Geneva treaty provisions relied on by the accused applied only to offenses committed while a person was a prisoner. The Court also said the courts should not substitute their judgment for military tribunals on evidentiary rulings, and it denied habeas corpus and certiorari.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the military conviction and sentence intact and affirms commanders can be tried for failing to control troops. It limits civilian court review of military commission evidence and procedure. The ruling also confirms political and military authorities, not the courts, have primary control over how such wartime trials proceed.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented, arguing the trial violated basic due process: the charge was vague, defense time was inadequate, prohibited hearsay and ex parte evidence were used, and treaty and constitutional protections should have applied.