## Facts

- James J. Medley, a Colorado prisoner, was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his wife on May 13, 1889.
- When the offense occurred, Colorado law authorized death as punishment, but did not require solitary confinement before execution, and the sentencing court set the execution date in open court.
- After the offense but before Medley’s sentencing, Colorado enacted a statute requiring (1) solitary confinement until execution and (2) that the prison warden fix the execution date and keep it from the condemned.
- Medley was sentenced under the new statute.
- Medley sought an original writ of habeas corpus, arguing the statute was unconstitutional as applied because it increased punishment after the crime.

## Issues

1. Whether applying a post-offense statute requiring pre-execution solitary confinement and shifting execution-date setting to the warden (with secrecy from the prisoner) constitutes an ex post facto law.
2. If so, whether the resulting death sentence is void so that custody under that sentence is unlawful on habeas corpus.

## Decision

- The Court held the statute was ex post facto as applied to Medley.
- The Court reasoned that mandatory solitary confinement until execution added a substantial punitive element beyond the death penalty authorized when the crime was committed.
- The Court also treated the transfer of execution-date authority to the warden, coupled with concealment of the date from the prisoner, as a change that disadvantaged the condemned and aggravated punishment.
- The Court concluded the sentence imposed under the new statute was void and ordered Medley discharged from the warden’s custody, with advance notice to the state attorney general.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal law is ex post facto if, after the offense, it inflicts greater punishment than the law attached to the crime when committed or alters the accused’s situation to the accused’s disadvantage.
- Changes labeled “procedural” may violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when their operation adds punitive burdens or increases the severity of punishment.
- On habeas corpus, a conviction and verdict may remain valid while the sentence is void if constitutional error arises at sentencing; detention under a void sentence is unlawful.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Colorado’s post-offense capital-sentencing statute as applied because it increased punishment by adding mandatory solitary confinement and imposing a secret, warden-controlled execution-date procedure, rendering the death sentence void and requiring Medley’s release from custody under that sentence.


In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1890)