Flick v. Johnson
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
174 F.2d 983 (1949)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
At the end of World War II, the armies of the four Allied powers—the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia—each occupied a separate zone in Germany. It was agreed that Germany would be governed by the commanders-in-chief in their respective zones and jointly in matters affecting all of Germany. The Control Council, composed of the four commanders, was designated the supreme governing body. The 1945 London Agreement provided for the establishment of the International Military Tribunal to prosecute war criminals whose crimes had no specific geographical location. To prosecute others, the Control Council enacted Law No. 10, which defined war crimes, prescribed punishments, and provided that each zone’s commander would designate his zone’s prosecuting tribunals and procedures. An ordinance promulgated in the United States zone provided for the establishment of military tribunals to try and punish the crimes recognized by the Control Council’s law. In 1947, Military Tribunal IV was established by the United States zone commander. Military Tribunal IV tried, convicted, and sentenced German citizen Friedrich Flick (defendant). Flick was in custody in the United States occupation zone and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District of Columbia. Because Flick was not confined within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, the district court dismissed the petition. Flick appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Proctor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.