v. UNITED STATES Medley v. United States was a Supreme Court case decided in 1890. The case involved a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by William Medley, a prisoner in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. Medley had been convicted of murder in the District of Columbia and sentenced to death. He argued that his conviction was unconstitutional because he had not been given a jury trial. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial did not apply to the District of Columbia because it was not a state. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment only applied to states, and the District of Columbia was not a state. Therefore, the Court held that Medley was not entitled to a jury trial and his conviction was valid. The decision in Medley v. United States was significant because it established that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial did not apply to the District of Columbia. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the Sixth Amendment and the District of Columbia.

v. UNITED STATES In the dissenting opinion of Medley v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow for an individual’s death sentence to be commuted without their consent or knowledge. He believed that such a law was in violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause and should not have been allowed by the court majority. He further argued that it was wrong for Congress to take away someone’s life without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves or present evidence on their behalf, as this violated basic principles of fairness and justice enshrined in our Constitution. Furthermore, he noted that while there may be some cases where clemency is appropriate, it must always be done with full knowledge and consent from those involved so they can make informed decisions about how best to proceed with their case. Ultimately, Justice Harlan concluded his dissent by stating “the power thus exercised [by Congress] is inconsistent with all just conceptions of liberty and justice."