Keenan Vs. Burke

Keenan vs Burke

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1951

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/98632

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/98632
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1951
Case Number: 342 U.S. 881
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Keenan

Respondent

Burke

Excerpt

.....certiorari to the supreme court of the commonwealth of pennsylvania. mr. archibald cox, cambridge, mass., for petitioners. messrs. james w. tracey, jr., john h. maurer, philadelphia, pa., for respondent. per curiam. the judgments are reversed. townsend v. burke, 334 u.s. 736 . memorandum by mr. justice minton, dissenting. these cases only illuminate the error of this court in townsend v. burke, 334 u.s. 736 . i would not compound the error. i would overrule townsend rather than send these petitioners back to be proceeded against nicely. their guilt is not questioned. they say, 'if we had only had a lawyer, maybe we would not have received such long sentences.' yet, the sentencing judge gave two of the petitioners much shorter terms than the maximum provided by statute. they complain not so much of the sentences they received but the manner in [ keenan v. burke 342 u.s. 881 (1951) ][881-continued.] which they received them. admit the sentencing judge was facetious, even that he bulldozed the petitioners-he sentenced them all within the limits authorized by law. maybe the judge's conduct called for a curtain lecture. at most, that was a matter for the pennsylvania supreme court, and that court did not see even an error of state law in the judge's conduct, let alone a federal constitutional question. we sit only to determine federal constitutional questions, not to scold state trial judges. it is utterly incomprehensible to me how a judge can commit a denial of federal due page 342 u.s. 881 , 882 process by being facetious in the sentencing of defendants where the sentences he imposes are within the limits prescribed by statute. i would affirm.

Full Judgment

KEENAN v. BURKE - 342 U.S. 881 (1951)
U.S. Supreme Court KEENAN v. BURKE , 342 U.S. 881 (1951)

342 U.S. 881

Edward J. KEENAN, Petitioner,
v.
C. J. BURKE, Warden, New Eastern State Penitentiary.

Walter JANKOWSKI, Petitioner,
v.
C. J. BURKE, Warden, New Eastern State Penitentiary.

Orville FOULKE, Petitioner,
v.
C. J. BURKE, Warden, New Eastern State Penitentiary.

Nos. 80, 81 and 82.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued and submitted Nov. 5, 1951.

November 26, 1951

On Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Archibald Cox, Cambridge, Mass., for petitioners.

Messrs. James W. Tracey, Jr., John H. Maurer, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgments are reversed. Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 .

Memorandum by Mr. Justice MINTON, dissenting.

These cases only illuminate the error of this Court in Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 . I would not compound the error. I would overrule Townsend rather than send these petitioners back to be proceeded against nicely. Their guilt is not questioned. They say, 'If we had only had a lawyer, maybe we would not have received such long sentences.' Yet, the sentencing judge gave two of the petitioners much shorter terms than the maximum provided by statute. They complain not so much of the sentences they received but the manner in [ Keenan v. Burke 342 U.S. 881 (1951) ][881-Continued.]

which they received them.

Admit the sentencing judge was facetious, even that he bulldozed the petitioners-he sentenced them all within the limits authorized by law. Maybe the judge's conduct called for a curtain lecture. At most, that was a matter for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and that court did not see even an error of state law in the judge's conduct, let alone a federal constitutional question. We sit only to determine federal constitutional questions, not to scold state trial judges. It is utterly incomprehensible to me how a judge can commit a denial of federal due

Page 342 U.S. 881 , 882

process by being facetious in the sentencing of defendants where the sentences he imposes are within the limits prescribed by statute. I would affirm.

Same Parties Keenan vs Burke Same Subject Education