Calley v. Callaway
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
519 F.2d 184 (1975)
- Written by Emily Pokora, JD
Facts
First Lieutenant William Calley (defendant) was charged with killing and ordering his platoon to kill Vietnamese civilians consisting of defenseless elderly men, women, and children. The civilians included one group of 30–40 people located along a trail and a group of 75–100 people in an irrigation ditch. Calley was also charged with shooting a middle-aged man dressed as a monk and a two-year-old child. A military court-martial was held, and Calley was found guilty of 22 counts of premeditated murder and one count of assault with intent to commit murder of a child. Calley admitted killing the civilians but denied shooting or murdering the monk and the child. The Army Court of Military Review and the United States Court of Military Appeals both affirmed Calley’s conviction and 20-year sentence. The secretary of the Army approved the conviction and reduced Calley’s sentence to 10 years. Calley filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against the secretary of the Army and the commanding general for Fort Benning, Georgia (plaintiff). Calley’s petition was granted on the basis of due-process violations, including lack of proper notification of the charges, leading to potential double jeopardy. The secretary of the Army appealed, arguing that the federal court’s review of the habeas petition was improper and overbroad.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ainsworth, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.