Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T’EXAS
AUSTIN 8 .
-cuuur --
.r:cnoreble Sobn R. Shook
crawl Tmixiot~ Attorney
:,eznr Cotmtp EM Antonio, TGXrIU
penr.Sir:
. , *
M~exoin it iS stated, in sub-
tary cuthoritislo, Mm my parson ir; found de&d under oir-
ntsnoc,
ou:dxmces whioh e?poar to require invoGtiGatiOn
tbc c~~3101~din~ orficar ~02 tho post sbr$l Qeoigdx3
a sk:mry ~ouxt martial for such inquest;* su&
slxtuto beiny, codifiad ns Yol. .10, Leotion l%c3,
U.%C.A. . .
‘Vhilol of oours~, tboro r:ould ho no doubt that in tho event them vm8 a ststuto opQicablo
to inpucstn won the dead bodies of reborn CJ? i; tho J&cd Po&?s of the united States by the
” J!$litsry authoritioo thst the local oivilis~ ou-
thorities \?ould have no jurisdiotion, but tho
enclosure oont with Major l:ag;lusen’s lottcr stem to be re$ulntioao isriucfl by the Tar Dcpartnent,
end QvGn though e’e Bre in war, lie do not believe
that suoh regulations %:ould have the lorcc sod
offect or stotuteo.
“You will understand, oj: course, that tho local coroners vmuld have no disposition to in-
terfora with the Arzy in.the htindling of dead
bodies of soldiers and the only reason they are
holding such inquests is- because the statutes,
Arts, 9%~?&9 9,&Y;, sceza to r;?ako It mmdatory,*!
%o’lettcr of Zcjor Lewis 0. ?hgmsen mentioned In your letter aad attached thoreto rosds as follo~~:o:
.Wnder Tit10 XCIT; Articles 960 to 939 Coda of Crininal l?rocodure~, the nethod of &k- ing inquests upon dead bodies is provided for?
It is jade thho duty of austices of the Peaoo
to hold inquests without a jury within their
resgective~ Couutiss ,nhen:
“1. A person dies in priiion; 2. Any person Q.l killed or Prom any cause dice en unnatural death, except uMor
sentonce of law or in the absenoe of olio or
~mori good witneososJ !m body of a ‘humm .bcins is ,found
3. and tho ~iroumstanoas of his death fwe. unknount !rho cirouwtances of -the death of
4. any person are such aa to- lesd to suspicion
that ho 0es.o to his death by unlmvful am-G.
*There em nu3orous Amy air -fieMs in :%cn an tiir crash ooours. cna the this County.
person or porsons in military sorvioo aro killed
83 a rc&.t themof, the Justice of the roaoe
conducts cn inquest (16 provided in the Codq of
Crirrid l’roce(luTe. It is our position that *3 i’
/ i * honorable 30h 2, Shook, l?a3e 3
, spetilfic Army Iio~ulations pr0aulgh3a by the 'iinr
Department give military authorities exclusive.
jurisdiction to make lnveoti~atlana and disDos%~ of air orash victims, and " -
tion of the remIn
that such inoucsts crc not rec!uirod or nccossary.
Duo to the holding of in'quoots by looal coroner,
military authorities are 00~p3nea in Jxm3 in- stances to vait as land as air&t Oouro before
tckin~ ohnl~o or the rlxmins of c1Fl3h victIlx3.
'iho Xar Departzen% .hao prcmul.gatoa *?rmy lic3ula-
tlono concernin aircraft accidents anil forced
Inndings, oopy of which is inclosud here:?ith,
'5% have discuasod this mattor with tho Attorney &nor& ancl ho has eu:*~estcd that we
lay the cattor b&ore you and ask~that you ro-
quest en oplnioti frba the AWormy Ceneral'a
Department on the subjcot 80 that the,.Fatter
may be 33ttha. For your' Luformation w3 cite
the followin authorities which uio~belfevc sus-
tain our position:
"The Stan&r& Oil Company'af California vs-. Sohnson, - u. a.. __ ,,a6 kit-r Ed 1063
"U.8, vs, I?acXntooh, 203 U. 2. 005 lidltoil vs. I;ontuc!:y Distilleries, 251 u, a* 14G
Xo~tlnexn lkoific. Rnilvay Corrpany VS.l~orth Dakota, I% rsX La.nger, 250 U. 3. 135."
~hrialo 368, Voxnonts Annotaq Cod3 of Criminal bxoaure, provides i
"'J&y juot5co.oP32.w poao~ .shall be autbor- lzcd, and It shall bo his duty, to hold inquests
\rithout a jury xlthin his county, in. the foH.ow
lng ctl3es:
-1, y/hen a person dies in prison, "2. ?,&3ll any pcrsoh is killed, ox sr&l any
cause dies fan onnaturzLl death, oxcopt under
oeutenco of the law.or iii th9 absonoq of one
,or more+ Good vfitn333csi
%- I:‘omrable John .R. Shook, PaSe 4
“3, Then tho body of a humn bein;? i5 found, 5na the oiromstanoas of his doath am urk~ou@, : :1.
“4. Xhen the aircumtanaes of tho death ’ _ “-~ OS any person are suoh as to lead to suspicion
that he came to his death by i.mlaivful.. means.‘V
Section lSS5, 0. S, C. A., Vol. 10, providos ‘: Wxn at any post, fort, cac?p, or other plaao Sarrisonsd.by the military forces of tho
United States and und@r the txclu3ive jurisdio-
tion of the United States, any parson shall have
been found doad under oitcumstances which ap-
pear to xec,uiro investigation, the oo.manainz
~ofriaor will dcs,imato ana direat a oumary
court-3zartial to InvestiSato the circuaotnnccs
.attendiqq the death; and, for thio purpose,
such sumary ooust-3artiaJ. ohall have po-iwr to
sumon witncs~t35 ahd cxmino the;? upon oath
or affimation. 3% shall promptly tran5RLit to
the wst or other, aomandor a report af his in-
ves%iSation and--of this findings as to tho cause
of ths dwth,”
Ue have carefully considered $ho authorities In each of ‘the cases oitod a oitod by E.*aJor f:agnuscn.
Ycdoral statuto via5 involved and under consideration. 3.3 40 not thihk ,that ‘any.oftho oases cited are applicable
totho question under consideration, If there is a Bd- cral statute anplicabls OS the n%i3oro- of the hrnod Borcos of the United Statco to inquests upon the doad bodies by ,ths military authorities w do not think that the
lcaal civil authorities Uould have any jurisdiction. Set- tion 15%, supra, only.authori&s iagueats bY military
5uthorities on pests, forts, camps, or other plaoos Sar- rioonoa by the military foraas of the United Statas and under the exclusive jurisdiction of tha United States.
In aohnootion with tho quaotlon hero involved VQ havo carofully:oo~siaor&l the regulations issued by tha i?ar heuartzmnt with rofcronco to accidents, eta.,
~hrc air&aft is involved and do not balicva or t!lbk hzs a10 fox00 aha offoct of tho
that ouch rc&ation
otututo, = *5 .
.
Sonoreble John R, Shook, Page 5 .
With raforenco to inquests. the quostionl:?eforo is whether snyone 1 s responsible for tP;e death i the justice inquired .into. Xf he fide that no on3 is respono~blo bio Punotign is at an end an& ho has no po?er to pa30 upon (l?oehma v. Sovereign Carp ~:ooi&nen of any other question, t.ba World, 84 S, Ff, 422; %xns Jurisprudence, Vol. 24, p. 3G4,) Xn answer to the question subdttea~ it is our dpinlon that justioes af the peace am not authorizca nor .
lo it their duty to hold. inquests at cny poet, fort, annp, or OtLer plaoa @mrisomd by .the nilltary iomc3 of the Unitoa Sta+&s and unxer~ the cczol~sioo jw&odiotion of the Unitea states. It i3 ouz futihor opinion that the justioes of the peace ara authorized end it is ti~ofr &ty to hold. ~.
inquests a3: raquirod by Article 968, supm, when an air crash or acpiilent, doours en8 4 pox-son or person3 in nili- tary service sra killed as a result thereof any where in the ~oouuty except &I the places above aentionad.
Tours, very truly A9!i’OlZ~Y GFX3l2& OF ‘i?ZZlS -.