Bolln v. Nebraska
Headline: Court upholds Nebraska’s power to prosecute felony cases by information, rejects claim that federal Constitution forces grand jury indictments, and affirms the state-court judgment.
Holding:
- Allows states to prosecute felonies by information without automatically violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Limits Supreme Court review when federal claims are not raised timely in state courts.
- Affirms that Nebraska’s admission did not impose federal bill-of-rights limits on the State.
Summary
Background
A man convicted in Nebraska challenged his conviction on two main grounds. He argued that Nebraska could not prosecute felony cases by an information instead of a grand jury indictment under the Fourteenth Amendment. He also claimed he was denied a jury decision on whether he had waived a required preliminary hearing. The Nebraska courts decided against him, and the case reached the United States Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether Nebraska’s system of prosecuting felonies by information violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court said states have long been allowed to use informations where their laws permit it. The Court reviewed Congress’s enabling act and Nebraska’s admission acts and concluded that admitting Nebraska to the Union did not impose a special rule forcing the state to adopt grand jury indictments. The Court also explained that the first eight amendments had been understood to apply to federal courts, not automatically to state prosecutions, and that Nebraska’s law did not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Real world impact
The result means states like Nebraska may continue felony prosecutions by information if their own constitutions and laws allow it, without that method being automatically unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court declined to decide the separate issue about a jury trial on the waiver of the preliminary examination because that federal claim was not properly raised in the state courts before final judgment, so the state judgment was affirmed.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Harlan dissented, indicating he disagreed with the Court’s disposition of the case.
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?