Skip to main content

This Day in Legal History--United States v. Shipp, 214 U.S. 386 (1909)

On May 24, 1909, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a verdict in its first and only criminal trial, U.S. v. Shipp, 103 years ago today. The resulting trial and decision provide what many acknowledge as the foundation for federal habaes corpus actions in state criminal cases.

The facts leading to this unusual proceeding commenced on January 23 1906, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, when Nevada Taylor, a young white woman, was raped by an unknown man. Within days of the attack, pressure mounted to find the assailant, and  a reward of $375 was issued and reported in the Chattanooga News. The next day, a white man, Will Hixon, came forward and placed Johnson near the scene of the crime near the time of its occurrence. Arrested on January 26, Johnson was secretly moved to Nashville pending trial by order of the state criminal court judge, for fear he would be lynched before the proceedings could begin. That very night, a large mob attacked the jail at Chattanooga, believing Johnson was still detained there.

Johnson continually proclaimed his innocence, and provided names of a dozen men who could account for his whereabouts. Despite this, on February 9, Johnson was convicted by a jury of twelve white men in the criminal court of Hamilton County, and sentenced to death by hanging, to take place on March 13.

With the assistance of Noah W. Parden and Styles L. Hutchins, the leading black attorneys in Chattanooga, a motion for new trial was filed and summarily rejected, as Johnson's previously appointed attorneys missed the 72 hour filing deadline required under the local  rules.

Johnson and his new attorneys next filed a petition in the in the U.S. District Court in Knoxville, Tennessee, under the 1867 Habeas Corpus Act (alleging deprivation of his constitutional rights) on March 3. On March 10, the petition was dismissed and writ denied, with Johnson remanded to the custody of the Sheriff Shipp of Hamilton County, with execution stayed for 10 days to allow for appeal. On March 17, the emergency appeal was made to Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was assigned to hear emergency appeals from within the 6th Circuit. Justice Harlan, already known for his scathing dissent in Plessy v. Fergueson in 1896, granted the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With Johnson's execution stayed, the Chattanooga News headline on March 19 read, "An Appeal is Allowed. Ed Johnson Will Not Hang To-morrow," (214 U.S. at 412). That evening, a number of men entered the county jail in Chattanooga without apparent resistance, and with a sledge and ax, broke the bolts to the corridor door leading to Johnson's cell. By this time an estimated crowd of 150 had gathered, and continued to the bridge over the Tennessee River, where Johnson was lynched. His last words were reported to be: "God bless you all, I am innocent."

After learning about the lynching, U.S. Attorney General William Moody sent Secret Service agents to investigate the lynching, and concluded a conspiracy among the sheriff, deputies, and mob members had formed to kill Johnson. Upon his findings, Sheriff Shipp, six deputies, and 19 members of the mob were charged with contempt of court.

The trial began on February 12, 1907 in the Supreme Court, after witnesses were presented and cross-examined by the lawyers in the Chattanooga federal courthouse, where the justices were not present. At the Supreme Court, each side was given one day to summarize its case. On May 24, 1909, Chief Justice Fuller found Shipp, one deputy, and four mob members guilty of contempt. Justice Fuller explained that ". . . if the life of anyone in the custody of the law is at the mercy of a mob, the administration of justice becomes a mockery. . . [a]nd when its mandate issued for his protection was defied, punishment of those guilty of such must be awarded." (214 U.S. at 425).

This unusual case contributed to our understanding of what it means to have the right to a fair trial, one free from violence, and that this right is a federal right of state criminal defendants, protected under the Constitution.  The first and only criminal trial in the U.S. Supreme Court is historic not only in its rarity, but for its continuing impact on the constitutional guarantee of due process and the rule of law in the United States.


  1. A fascinating moment in US history. Thanks for contextualizing it in terms of both legal precedent and race relations.

    I wish I were shocked that Shipp et al. weren't charged with anything more serious than contempt of court.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Spying and International Law

With increasing numbers of foreign governments officially objecting to now-widely publicized U.S. espionage activities, the topic of the legality of these activities has been raised both by the target governments and by the many news organizations reporting on the issue.For those interested in better understanding this controversy by learning more about international laws concerning espionage, here are some legal resources that may be useful.

The following is a list of multinational treaties relevant to spies and espionage:
Brussels Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (1874).Although never ratified by the nations that drafted it, this declaration is one of the earliest modern examples of an international attempt to codify the laws of war.Articles 19-22 address the identification and treatment of spies during wartime.These articles served mainly to distinguish active spies from soldiers and former spies, and provided no protections for spies captured in the act.The Hagu…

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …