Duncan v. Kahanamoku
|Duncan v. Kahanamoku|
|Argued December 7, 1945|
Decided February 25, 1946
|Full case name||Duncan v. Duke Kahanamoku|
327 U.S. 304 (more)|
66 S. Ct. 606; 90 L. Ed. 688
|The trial by military tribunal, that convicted Duncan, was unconstitutional.|
|Majority||Black, joined by Reed, Douglas, Rutledge|
|Dissent||Burton, joined by Frankfurter|
|Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court. It is often associated with the Japanese exclusion cases (Hirabayashi v. United States, Korematsu v. United States and Ex parte Endo) because it involved wartime curtailment of fundamental civil liberties under the aegis of military authority, though in this case neither the plaintiff nor the nominal defendant were Japanese.
While Duke Kahanamoku was a military police officer during World War II, he arrested Duncan, a civilian shipfitter on February 24th, 1944, following a brawl with two armed Marine sentries at the yard. At the time, Hawaii, not yet a state, was being administered under the Hawaiian Organic Act which effectively instituted martial law on the island, tightened after the attack on Pearl Harbour. Duncan was tried and convicted by a military tribunal for assault on military or naval personnel with intent to resist or hinder them in the discharge of their duty, despite civilian courts at the time having restarted summoning jurors and witnesses and conducting criminal trials on the island; Duncan appealed to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that trial by military tribunal was, in this case, unconstitutional.
- Anthony, J. Garner (1947). "Hawaiian Martial Law in the Supreme Court". Yale Law Journal. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 1. 57 (1): 27–54. doi:10.2307/793363. JSTOR 793363.
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
|This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|