Case Analysis Free Example

Duncan vs. Kahanamoku Court Case Analysis

 

Duncan vs. Kahanamoku

The case of Duncan vs. Kahamoku was the case that involved the martial law being challenged by the defendant to protect his civil rights.. The case was the challenge from the part of Duncan, who did not recognize the jurisdiction and the authority of military tribunals to try him in the case against the US military. Duncan won the case and his case became one of the precedents which imposed considerable limits on the jurisdiction of military tribunals, even if they were introduced under the martial law. The case also granted Americans with the right to get their civil rights and liberties protected and the right to the civil trial even under the martial law rule.

Facts

The defendant, Duncan, was detained by the police officer Kahanamoku after the brawl with two Marine sentries. Duncan was tried by the military tribunal court and sentenced to six months in prison. However, the defendant appealed on the ground that the military tribunal could not try him since the military tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to try him. In this regard, habeas corpus was restored in March 1943, whereas Duncan was detained and tried in February 1944, when the habeas corpus was already restored. In response, attempts of the plaintiff to defend the military by justifying the potential threat to the national security in Hawaii because of the wartime and Japanese threat turned out to be overruled and were irrelevant to the case. The plaintiff insisted that the military tribunal still had the right to try the defendants because he assaulted the military and the threat from the part of Japan persisted along with the risk of the support of the Japanese from the part of the local population of Japanese descent.

Procedural history

The procedural history of the case involved the presumable assault of Duncan against two Marine sentries followed up by his arrest and trial by the military tribunal. The military tribunal tried him under the martial law because, at the time being, the US was in the state of war and Hawaii introduced the Hawaiian Organic Act which introduced the martial law on the islands and granted the military with the legal ground for trial civil cases. Crimes committed against the military could be tried by the military tribunal, while rights of civilians were restricted consistently. For example, their right to habeas corpus was suspended that meant that the military government could detain civilians indefinitely for the time the martial law was in action. After the presumable assault from the part of the defendant on two Marine sentries, the military used their power granted to them by the martial law and tried him under the military tribunal which sentenced the defendant to six months. However, the defendant disagreed and appealed on the ground that he was tried wrongfully because the military tribunal had no jurisdiction over him and could not try him. Instead, his case should have been tried by the civil car in accordance with existing legal procedures. Therefore, he stood on the ground that his habeas corpus and his rights to the civil trial was violated, while the sentence had to be canceled because the military tribunal had no authority to try him. The court of appeals recognized the right of the defendant and agreed that the military tribunal had no authority to try Duncan under the martial law since there was no immediate threat from the part of Japan and the local population of Japanese descent. The court canceled the ruling of the military tribunal and restored habeas corpus right of the defendant, but, what is more important, the court’s ruling limited the scope and jurisdiction of military tribunals and martial law to defend Constitutional rights of Americans which could not be absolutely compromised even during the wartime.

Issue

The issue was whether the defendant could be tried by the military tribunal under the martial law in terms of the Hawaiian Organic Act. The defendant insisted that the military tribunal could not try him, whereas the plaintiff insisted that the military tribunal could try him under the martial law in face of the persisting threat from the part of Japan and the possible support of Japan by the local population of Japanese descent.

Rules

The Hawaiian Organic Act introduced the martial law on Hawaii after Pearl Harbor attack.

The Hawaiian Organic Act restricted traditional civil rights and liberties of citizens, especially those related to their right to justice and legal defense.

Military tribunals have got the right to try civilians on any criminal cases, while, in case of Duncan, he was tried because of his presumable assault on two military sentries.

On the other hand, there were still Constitutional rights of Duncan, including the right to habeas corpus and the right to defense and trial of his case in the civilian court.

In addition, since March 1943 Hawaii has started to return under civilian control steadily that created the legal ground for disputing military’s actions and military tribunals’ rulings as was the case of Duncan.

Application/Analysis

The application of existing rules occurred on the ground of the different evaluation of the legal and political situation in Hawaii. On the one hand, the military insisted on the persisting threat from the part of Japan. The plaintiff insisted that the local population of Japanese descent that comprised about 160,000 could never be trusted and the persisting war against Japan urged the military to enhance the control over Hawaii. The latter implied the right of the military to suppress civil rights and liberties and use military tribunals to try cases to maintain stability and order on the islands and to secure islands from possible treacherous actions from the part of the local population and to enhance the defense capability of the US in the region. The threat from the part of Japan and the uncertainty in the local population of Japanese descent were the major reasons and arguments for the introduction of the Hawaiian Organic Act and the use of the military tribunals, including the use of the military tribunal in case against Duncan.

On the contrary, Duncan insisted that the military tribunal did not have the authority to try him, whereas the civil court of appeals questioned whether the threat from the part of Japan and the local population was still relevant and significant enough to continue using military tribunals and to impose substantial limitations on civil rights and liberties of Americans, regardless of their descent, in Hawaii. The court ultimately recognized that the threat was exaggerated and took the side of the defendant.

Conclusion

Thus, the court ruled that the military tribunal did not have the authority to try Duncan and canceled the sentence of the military tribunal. The case of Duncan vs. Kahamoku revealed the inconsistency of the threat and the scope of operations of military tribunals. The case resulted in the limitation of the martial law provisions by the civilian court which stand for the rights of citizens granted to them by the US Constitution, including the habeas corpus right and the right to the legal defense of their rights and liberties in the civilian court.

References:

Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946)

The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].
Available at:

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]
close
Haven't found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
print

Professional writers and researchers

quotes

Sources and citation are provided

clock

3 hour delivery

person