110 U.S. 516 (1884)
Joseph Hurtado was charged by an information filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento County with the murder of Jose Antonio Estuardo.1 The information was in the usual form and charged the crime with technical precision and in due legal language.2 It was filed after the defendant had been examined and committed by a magistrate, as required by the statute.3
The Constitution of California, adopted in 1879, provides that offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment.4 The Penal Code of the State, adopted in 1872 and in force at the time, contained provisions authorizing every person to be proceeded against criminally by indictment or by information, and specifying that an information is an accusation in writing presented by the district attorney after preliminary examination or waiver.5
Hurtado moved to set aside the information on the ground that it was not found or presented by a grand jury.6 The motion was overruled.7 He was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was put upon his trial.8 The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, and judgment was pronounced sentencing him to be hanged.9
From this judgment Hurtado appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California, which affirmed it.10 He then sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.11
Whether the proceeding by information, in the manner authorized by the Constitution and laws of California, is due process of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?12
The words 'due process of law' in the Fourteenth Amendment were intended to secure to the citizen the same protection against arbitrary legislation that the words 'by the law of the land' secured to the subjects of the crown against the exercise of arbitrary power by the crown or its ministers.13 A process of law which is not otherwise forbidden must be taken to be due process of law if it can show the sanction of settled usage both in England and in this country.14 The proceeding by information after examination and commitment by a magistrate is a proceeding in a court of justice according to the course of the common law.15 It therefore constitutes due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.16
Yes. Joseph Hurtado was charged by an information filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento County with the murder of Jose Antonio Estuardo. The information was in the usual form and charged the crime with technical precision and in due legal language. It was filed after the defendant had been examined and committed by a magistrate, as required by the statute.
The Constitution of California, adopted in 1879, provides that offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information after examination and commitment by a magistrate or by indictment.17 The Penal Code of the State, adopted in 1872 and in force at the time, contained provisions authorizing every person to be proceeded against criminally by indictment or by information and specifying that an information is an accusation in writing presented by the district attorney after preliminary examination or waiver.
Hurtado moved to set aside the information on the ground that it was not found or presented by a grand jury. The motion was overruled. He was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was put upon his trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, and judgment was pronounced sentencing him to be hanged.
From this judgment Hurtado appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California, which affirmed it. He then sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States. The California proceeding followed the course of the common law as practiced in many states from the foundation of the government.18 It was conducted in a court of justice with full opportunity for defense and trial by jury.19 The rule elements of settled usage and protection against arbitrary power are therefore satisfied by these specific facts.20
The proceeding by information in the manner authorized by the Constitution and laws of California is due process of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Harlan dissented. He argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. The right to proceed only by indictment of a grand jury in capital cases is a fundamental right secured by due process of law.22 He maintained that, according to the settled usages and modes of proceeding existing under the common and statute law of England at the settlement of this country, an information for a capital offence was not regarded as due process of law.23 Harlan emphasized that the people of the original States required an amendment securing exemption from prosecution for a capital offence except upon the indictment or presentment of a grand jury.24 This exemption was essential to protection against unfounded prosecution.25
He concluded that the judgment of the Supreme Court of California should be reversed because the information for murder deprived the citizen of this fundamental right.26