Hawaii v. Mankichi

1903-06-01

Headline: Hawaii’s pre‑annexation criminal procedures upheld; Court reversed release of a man convicted by a nine‑juror verdict, ruling Fifth and Sixth Amendment jury rules did not immediately apply after annexation.

Holding: The Court held that Congress’s annexation resolution preserved Hawaii’s existing criminal procedures between 1898 and 1900, so federal grand‑jury and unanimous‑jury requirements did not automatically apply and the habeas release was reversed.

Real World Impact:

Upheld convictions under Hawaii’s pre‑1900 criminal rules for crimes tried between annexation and 1900.
Limits immediate reach of Fifth and Sixth Amendment jury rules in newly annexed territories.
Leaves Congress responsible for changing local criminal procedure in territories.

Topics: territorial law, annexation and local law, jury rights, criminal procedure

Summary

Background

A man named Osaki Mankichi was tried in Hawaii in 1899 and convicted of manslaughter by a nine‑member jury under long‑standing Hawaiian criminal practice. Congress passed a joint resolution in 1898 annexing Hawaii and said local laws not "contrary to the Constitution" would remain in force until Congress acted further. The territorial organic act of April 30, 1900 later set up grand juries and required unanimous verdicts.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the 1898 resolution meant that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rules — indictment by grand jury and unanimous petit‑jury verdicts — took immediate effect. The majority read the resolution as provisional: Congress intended to preserve existing local procedures until it provided replacements, not to wipe them out instantly and create legal chaos. The Court therefore held those specific jury rules did not automatically apply between annexation and the 1900 organic act, and it reversed the lower court’s order that had freed Mankichi.

Real world impact

The decision leaves convictions obtained under Hawaii’s pre‑1900 procedures intact for crimes tried between annexation and the 1900 law, unless Congress or later law says otherwise. It puts the practical burden on Congress to change criminal procedure in newly annexed territories rather than having constitutional criminal‑procedure rules take immediate effect.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices concurred on an alternative ground: the islands were not fully incorporated so those amendments did not apply (relying on Downes v. Bidwell). Four Justices dissented, arguing the Constitution did apply immediately and the accused should have been discharged.