Johnson v. Bennett

Background

A man indicted in 1934 was accused of killing a policeman in Burlington, Iowa. He said he was innocent and had an alibi placing him in Des Moines, 165 miles away, on the day of the crime. At trial, several witnesses testified he was in Des Moines. The judge told the jury the defendant had to prove his alibi by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). The jury convicted him of second-degree murder and sentenced him to life. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, and the defendant sought federal habeas relief claiming the State violated his right to due process by shifting the burden of proof on the alibi.

Reasoning

The Court agreed to review whether that alibi instruction was constitutional. After certiorari was granted, the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc in a different case, held that Iowa’s rule forcing defendants to prove an alibi violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Because that en banc decision addressed the same legal rule, the Supreme Court vacated the earlier judgment and sent the case back to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the en banc ruling. The Court did not decide the constitutional question itself on the merits in this per curiam order.

Real world impact

The immediate effect is procedural: the Supreme Court’s order removes the lower-court judgment and requires a fresh look by the Court of Appeals. If the appeals court applies its en banc reasoning, Iowa defendants who were required to prove alibis could be entitled to relief. This decision is not a final ruling on the instruction’s constitutionality; the case will return to the lower court for further consideration and possible new rulings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black dissented from the Court’s order; the opinion notes his disagreement but does not elaborate further in this per curiam decision.