Case law · Highest court · Federal

Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.

Decided
February 21, 1978
Docket
76-5325
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 3,383 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled, superseded by statute (not yet verified) · Gonzalez v. Thaler

What later courts said

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

Mr. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide whether the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review an order directing petitioner’s discharge from respondent’s custody because respondent’s appeal was untimely. In order to resolve this question, we must consider the applicability of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 (b) and 59 in habeas corpus proceedings. Because we conclude that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction, w© reverse.[1]

[*259] I On January 29, 1971, a teenage girl reported to Chicago police that she had been raped. She gave a physical description of her assailants to one officer and told another officer that one of her attackers was named “Browder,” was about 17 years old, and lived in the 4000 block of West Monroe. On the basis of this information and further investigation, the police focused on petitioner’s brother, Tyrone Browder, whose name was in the files of the Youth Division of the Chicago Police Department. A telephone conversation between a Youth Division officer and Mrs. Lucille Browder shifted the officers’ suspicions from Tyrone to petitioner, and Mrs. Browder agreed to keep both her sons at home until the police arrived to talk to them. Four officers interviewed petitioner and his brother, both of whom denied knowledge of the rape. The officers arrested the brothers along with two other teenage Negro males who were present at the Browder home. The four arrestees were taken to the police station, where another officer noticed that petitioner fit the description of the assailant in a rape that had taken place on January 30. In separate lineups, each complainant identified petitioner as her assailant. After being informed of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), petitioner confessed [*260] to the second rape but denied having committed the rape on January 29.

Statutes cited

Cite this

Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (1978)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.