Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ex Parte Bynum

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 6, 1975No. SC 1117Published

1ConcurrenceHeflin, Chief Justice

I agree that the petitioner is entitled to bail, but for a different reason.

The petitioner has been charged with violation of Title 14, Section 123, Alabama Code of 1940, as amended (Recompiled 1958), which subjects to punishment any person “who wilfully sets off or explodes any dynamite or other explosive in, under or dangerously near to * * * any inhabited dwelling house * * This statute sets the punishment at death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than ten years, at the discretion of the jury.

Much has been said about the case of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Ex parte McAnallySupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
  3. Ex parte McCrarySupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
  4. Colvin v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1951
  5. Ex parte BryantSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API