Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S.

516 (1884)

Purpose of the guaranty

FACTS:
Joseph Hurtado discovered that his wife, Susie, was having an affair with their friend, José
Antonio Estuardo. After measures that Hurtado took to put an end to the affair, such as
temporarily sending his wife away to live with her parents and then assaulting Estuardo in a
bar after his wife returned and the affair resumed, proved futile, Hurtado fatally shot
Estuardo. Hurtado was arrested for the crime but was not indicted by a grand jury.

Joseph Hurtado was charged with killing Jose Antonio Stuardo. He was ultimately tried by a
jury and convicted of first-degree murder. The court sentenced Hurtado to the death
penalty.

The law in California allowed for an accusation by information, rather than an indictment by
a grand jury. Information is a document filed by the district attorney that lists the charges
against a defendant and is reviewed and approved by a magistrate before it becomes
effective. In Hurtado’s case, the district attorney charged him by filing information.
Following his conviction, Hurtado contended that not presenting his case to a grand jury for
indictment violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

ISSUE:
Does a state criminal proceeding based on information rather than a grand jury indictment
violate the 14th Amendment's due process clause?

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that Hurtado's due process right was not violated by denial of
a grand jury hearing and that the 14th Amendment was not intended to work retroactively
to apply the 5th Amendment to state criminal trials.
Writing for the majority, Justice Matthews stated that the states should be free to construct
their own laws without infringement and that the 14th Amendment was not intended to
guarantee the right of a grand jury because it would then have been specifically referenced.
His opinion also concluded that Hurtado's due process right was not violated, as
information is "merely a preliminary proceeding and can result in no final judgment." He
further concluded that Hurtado still received a fair trial.
The broad concept of “due process of law” should not be held static by requiring a certain
legal process over another. Accordingly, indictment by grand jury is not mandated by the
term “due process.”
Indeed, the Fifth Amendment mentions both indictments by a grand jury and due process.
Because there is no surplus language in the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment must be
read to mean that due process does not necessarily include the right to indictment by
grand jury. That is supported by the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment mentions due
process, but not the grand jury. Moreover, the accusation by information in this case was
reviewed by a magistrate. Thus, liberty and justice are still protected in that procedure such
that Hurtado received due process.