How Did Holmes Respond To The Denial Of Shipp Case

Throughout his opinion, Holmes loosely cited the Fourteenth Amendment in his explanation for bringing the men to trial. He uses it to affirm the Supreme Court authority in charging those responsible because it was a violation of federal law. They had to enforce the Court's judgement but failed to protect Johnson from harm. Justice Holmes said, “the sheriff was to be regarded as bailee of the United States…” He failed so, a contempt charge was applicable. He noted the circumstances of Johnson’s case that helped influenced his opinion because he did not have a fair shot. Besides, the basis of the appeal brought by his lawyers in persuading the Supreme Court to intervene. Holmes discussed the denial of Shipp and others in their involvement of

Before the Supreme Court justices decision, they had to examine scores of pages from Maher’s trial to reach their conclusion. In United States v. Shipp, the Supreme Court found Shipp and his co-conspiracies guilty of criminal contempt but the men received different prison sentences. For instance, Shipp got 90 days in prison. Justice Peckham, Justice White and Justice McKen contributed to the lengthy dissent that discussed the origin of the trial and how they could not find sufficient evidence to charge the men. Interesting to note, Moody became a Supreme Court justice and he refrained from the case. In the dissent the justices said, “that all of these acts were committed by defendants with the intent upon their part to utterly disregard the above-mentioned order of this court and to prevent the court from hearing Johnson's appeal.” The men actions proved contrary to their non-guilty pleas. For example: on the night of Johnson’s lynching, Gibson was sole officer in the jail who was him, and when confronted by the mob, he handed over his keys. Shipp and the others knew that the Johnson life was in danger and failed to protect him, violating their duty in protecting him. He had access to a militia not far from the jail, but did not contact them and even more failed to notify the local police. The Supreme Court found his actions to be neglect, and in clear disregard of his official duties. Though he