31:
207:
the court took a recess. When the court reconvened a short time later, it decided that the indictments could not be tried together and so directed the jury to be discharged from further consideration of them, and rescinded the order of consolidation. The prisoner was thereupon tried before the same jury on one of those indictments and found guilty. All of this was against his protest and without his consent. The judgment was taken by appeal to the supreme court in general term, where it was affirmed.
231:
decide upon the defenses offered by him. The matter now presented was one of those defenses. Whether it was a sufficient defense was a matter of law on which that court must pass so far as it was purely a question of law, and on which the jury under the instructions of the court must pass if we can suppose any of the facts were such as required submission to the jury.
234:
Article V of the
Amendments, and Articles VI and VII, contain other provisions concerning trials in the courts of the United States designed as safeguards to the rights of parties. Do all of these go to the jurisdiction of the courts? And are all judgments void where they have been disregarded in the
230:
But that court had jurisdiction of the offense described in the indictment on which the prisoner was tried. It had jurisdiction of the prisoner, who was properly brought before the court. It had jurisdiction to hear the charge and the evidence against the prisoner. It had jurisdiction to hear and to
247:
There are exceptions to this rule, but when they are relied on as foundations for relief in another proceeding, they could be clearly found to exist. In this case, no verdict nor judgment was rendered, no sentence enforced, and it remained with the trial court to decide whether the acts on which he
206:
against the petitioner for embezzlement as an officer of the Bank of the
Republic; and an order of the court had directed that they be consolidated under the statute and tried together. A jury was then impaneled and sworn, and the district attorney had made a statement of his case to the jury, when
251:
The court was of the opinion that what was done by that court was within its jurisdiction. That the question thus raised by the prisoner was one which it was competent to decide, which it was bound to decide, and that its decision was the exercise of jurisdiction. Ex Parte
Watkins, 3 Pet. 202; Ex
243:
The high court confessed that it is not always very easy to determine what matters go to the jurisdiction of court so as to make its action when erroneous a nullity. But the general rule is that when the court has jurisdiction by law of the offense charged, and of the party who is so charged, its
226:
It is said, that the court below exceeded its jurisdiction, and that this Court has the power, in such case and for that reason, to discharge the prisoner from confinement under a void sentence. The proposition itself is sound if the facts justify the conclusion that the court of the district was
235:
progress of the trial? Is a judgment of conviction void when a deposition has been read against a person on trial for crime because he was not confronted with the witness, or because the indictment did not inform him with sufficient clearness of the nature and cause of the accusation?
189:
jail where he was held, as he alleges, unlawfully by John S. Crocker, the warden of the jail. He presents with the petition the record of his conviction and sentence in the
Supreme Court of the District to imprisonment for five years under an indictment for
210:
It was argued that the impaneling and swearing the jury and the statement of his case by the district attorney put the prisoner in jeopardy with regard to all the offenses charged in the consolidated indictments, within the meaning of the
1180:
1160:
315:
287:
264:
72:
1190:
392:
212:
383:
395:
222:
shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
1165:
255:
Without giving an opinion as to whether that decision was sound or not, the court decided it could not grant the writ being asked for, and it was denied.
1175:
194:, and this record and the petition of the applicant present all that could be brought before the court on a return to the writ, if one were awarded.
1185:
864:
1170:
376:
35:
409:
202:
The petitioner relies on a single point from the facts which occurred at the trial. Pending before the court, there were fourteen
1013:
609:
789:
369:
676:
813:
746:
510:
553:
1101:
1029:
438:
913:
577:
454:
138:
1021:
880:
829:
1069:
925:
1061:
821:
765:
711:
644:
636:
569:
470:
361:
561:
353:
1045:
989:
695:
668:
660:
593:
534:
526:
491:
1093:
965:
933:
805:
703:
422:
319:
291:
130:
114:
106:
64:
949:
856:
727:
186:
126:
335:
1085:
1053:
1005:
997:
957:
773:
617:
1037:
973:
941:
888:
872:
462:
326:
1077:
781:
719:
601:
150:
118:
252:
Parte Parks, 93 U. S. 23; Ex Parte
Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 653; Ex Parte Crouch, 112 U. S. 178.
1125:
981:
797:
1117:
652:
585:
518:
1109:
446:
344:
294:
98:
1154:
1133:
430:
182:
215:
of the
Constitution, so that he could not be again tried for any of those offenses.
191:
67:
203:
142:
79:
911:
489:
407:
365:
30:
218:
That amendment declares, among other things, that no person
181:, 113 U.S. 328 (1885), was an application for a writ of
265:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases, volume 113
1181:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Waite Court
840:
757:
738:
687:
628:
545:
502:
185:to release the petitioner from imprisonment in the
163:
158:
87:
59:
49:
42:
23:
220:
1161:United States Double Jeopardy Clause case law
377:
8:
248:relied were a defense to any trial at all.
908:
499:
486:
404:
384:
370:
362:
20:
1191:Legal history of the District of Columbia
276:
865:Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
18:1885 United States Supreme Court case
7:
1166:United States habeas corpus case law
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1176:United States Supreme Court cases
322:328 (1885) is available from:
227:without authority in the matter.
610:Bravo-Fernandez v. United States
29:
1186:1885 in United States case law
1:
393:United States Fifth Amendment
244:judgments are not nullities.
814:Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle
747:Blockburger v. United States
511:Blockburger v. United States
1171:United States jury case law
554:United States v. Randenbush
1207:
1102:J. D. B. v. North Carolina
1030:Dickerson v. United States
439:Wong Wing v. United States
1014:Mitchell v. United States
920:
914:Self-Incrimination Clause
907:
758:Dual sovereignty doctrine
578:Fong Foo v. United States
503:Meaning of "same offense"
498:
485:
455:United States v. Moreland
417:
403:
92:
28:
1022:United States v. Hubbell
881:North Carolina v. Pearce
830:Denezpi v. United States
790:United States v. Wheeler
45:Decided February 2, 1885
1070:Corley v. United States
1062:United States v. Patane
926:Curcio v. United States
822:Gamble v. United States
712:United States v. Dinitz
645:Ludwig v. Massachusetts
637:United States v. Wilson
570:Burton v. United States
471:United States v. Cotton
43:Argued January 19, 1885
1046:Yarborough v. Alvarado
766:United States v. Lanza
696:United States v. Perez
677:Smith v. United States
669:United States v. Dixon
661:United States v. Felix
594:Burks v. United States
535:United States v. Dixon
527:United States v. Felix
492:Double Jeopardy Clause
224:
1094:Berghuis v. Thompkins
934:Griffin v. California
806:United States v. Lara
704:United States v. Jorn
562:Ball v. United States
423:Hurtado v. California
990:Doe v. United States
857:Palko v. Connecticut
728:Blueford v. Arkansas
187:District of Columbia
1086:Maryland v. Shatzer
1054:Missouri v. Seibert
1006:McNeil v. Wisconsin
998:Illinois v. Perkins
958:Williams v. Florida
774:Bartkus v. Illinois
739:Multiple punishment
618:McElrath v. Georgia
354:Library of Congress
1038:Chavez v. Martinez
974:Edwards v. Arizona
966:Michigan v. Tucker
942:Miranda v. Arizona
889:Benton v. Maryland
873:Baxstrom v. Herold
463:Beck v. Washington
396:criminal procedure
167:Miller, joined by
103:Associate Justices
1148:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1078:Florida v. Powell
950:Boulden v. Holman
903:
902:
899:
898:
782:Waller v. Florida
720:Oregon v. Kennedy
602:Evans v. Michigan
481:
480:
174:
173:
151:Samuel Blatchford
119:Joseph P. Bradley
78:5 S. Ct. 542; 28
1198:
1126:Salinas v. Texas
982:Oregon v. Elstad
909:
849:Ex parte Bigelow
798:Heath v. Alabama
629:After conviction
500:
487:
405:
386:
379:
372:
363:
358:
352:
349:
343:
340:
334:
331:
325:
312:Ex parte Bigelow
298:
284:Ex parte Bigelow
281:
178:Ex parte Bigelow
139:Stanley Matthews
131:William B. Woods
115:Stephen J. Field
107:Samuel F. Miller
88:Court membership
54:Ex parte Bigelow
33:
32:
24:Ex parte Bigelow
21:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1140:
1118:Howes v. Fields
916:
895:
836:
753:
734:
683:
653:Grady v. Corbin
624:
586:Ashe v. Swenson
546:After acquittal
541:
519:Grady v. Corbin
494:
477:
413:
399:
390:
356:
350:
347:
341:
338:
332:
329:
323:
307:
302:
301:
282:
278:
273:
261:
241:
213:Fifth Amendment
200:
141:
129:
117:
83:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1204:
1202:
1194:
1193:
1188:
1183:
1178:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1153:
1152:
1146:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1139:
1138:
1130:
1122:
1114:
1110:Bobby v. Dixon
1106:
1098:
1090:
1082:
1074:
1066:
1058:
1050:
1042:
1034:
1026:
1018:
1010:
1002:
994:
986:
978:
970:
962:
954:
946:
938:
930:
921:
918:
917:
912:
905:
904:
901:
900:
897:
896:
894:
893:
885:
877:
869:
861:
853:
844:
842:
838:
837:
835:
834:
826:
818:
810:
802:
794:
786:
778:
770:
761:
759:
755:
754:
752:
751:
742:
740:
736:
735:
733:
732:
724:
716:
708:
700:
691:
689:
688:After mistrial
685:
684:
682:
681:
673:
665:
657:
649:
641:
632:
630:
626:
625:
623:
622:
614:
606:
598:
590:
582:
574:
566:
558:
549:
547:
543:
542:
540:
539:
531:
523:
515:
506:
504:
496:
495:
490:
483:
482:
479:
478:
476:
475:
467:
459:
451:
447:Maxwell v. Dow
443:
435:
427:
418:
415:
414:
408:
401:
400:
391:
389:
388:
381:
374:
366:
360:
359:
336:Google Scholar
306:
305:External links
303:
300:
299:
275:
274:
272:
269:
268:
267:
260:
257:
240:
237:
199:
196:
172:
171:
165:
161:
160:
156:
155:
154:
153:
127:John M. Harlan
104:
101:
99:Morrison Waite
96:
90:
89:
85:
84:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1203:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1156:
1136:
1135:
1134:Vega v. Tekoh
1131:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1003:
1000:
999:
995:
992:
991:
987:
984:
983:
979:
976:
975:
971:
968:
967:
963:
960:
959:
955:
952:
951:
947:
944:
943:
939:
936:
935:
931:
928:
927:
923:
922:
919:
915:
910:
906:
891:
890:
886:
883:
882:
878:
875:
874:
870:
867:
866:
862:
859:
858:
854:
851:
850:
846:
845:
843:
839:
832:
831:
827:
824:
823:
819:
816:
815:
811:
808:
807:
803:
800:
799:
795:
792:
791:
787:
784:
783:
779:
776:
775:
771:
768:
767:
763:
762:
760:
756:
749:
748:
744:
743:
741:
737:
730:
729:
725:
722:
721:
717:
714:
713:
709:
706:
705:
701:
698:
697:
693:
692:
690:
686:
679:
678:
674:
671:
670:
666:
663:
662:
658:
655:
654:
650:
647:
646:
642:
639:
638:
634:
633:
631:
627:
620:
619:
615:
612:
611:
607:
604:
603:
599:
596:
595:
591:
588:
587:
583:
580:
579:
575:
572:
571:
567:
564:
563:
559:
556:
555:
551:
550:
548:
544:
537:
536:
532:
529:
528:
524:
521:
520:
516:
513:
512:
508:
507:
505:
501:
497:
493:
488:
484:
473:
472:
468:
465:
464:
460:
457:
456:
452:
449:
448:
444:
441:
440:
436:
433:
432:
431:Ex parte Bain
428:
425:
424:
420:
419:
416:
411:
406:
402:
397:
394:
387:
382:
380:
375:
373:
368:
367:
364:
355:
346:
337:
328:
327:CourtListener
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
304:
296:
293:
289:
285:
280:
277:
270:
266:
263:
262:
258:
256:
253:
249:
245:
238:
236:
232:
228:
223:
219:
216:
214:
208:
205:
197:
195:
193:
188:
184:
183:habeas corpus
180:
179:
170:
166:
162:
157:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:Chief Justice
94:
93:
91:
86:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1132:
1124:
1116:
1108:
1100:
1092:
1084:
1076:
1068:
1060:
1052:
1044:
1036:
1028:
1020:
1012:
1004:
996:
988:
980:
972:
964:
956:
948:
940:
932:
924:
887:
879:
871:
863:
855:
848:
847:
828:
820:
812:
804:
796:
788:
780:
772:
764:
745:
726:
718:
710:
702:
694:
675:
667:
659:
651:
643:
635:
616:
608:
600:
592:
584:
576:
568:
560:
552:
533:
525:
517:
509:
469:
461:
453:
445:
437:
429:
421:
311:
297: (1885).
283:
279:
254:
250:
246:
242:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
209:
201:
192:embezzlement
177:
176:
175:
168:
159:Case opinion
146:
134:
122:
110:
71:
53:
15:
204:indictments
143:Horace Gray
1155:Categories
410:Grand Jury
271:References
198:Background
169:unanimous
60:Citations
398:case law
310:Text of
259:See also
239:Decision
164:Majority
1137:(2022)
1129:(2013)
1121:(2012)
1113:(2011)
1105:(2011)
1097:(2010)
1089:(2010)
1081:(2010)
1073:(2009)
1065:(2004)
1057:(2004)
1049:(2004)
1041:(2003)
1033:(2000)
1025:(2000)
1017:(1999)
1009:(1991)
1001:(1990)
993:(1988)
985:(1985)
977:(1981)
969:(1974)
961:(1970)
953:(1969)
945:(1966)
937:(1965)
929:(1957)
892:(1969)
884:(1969)
876:(1966)
868:(1947)
860:(1937)
852:(1885)
833:(2022)
825:(2019)
817:(2016)
809:(2004)
801:(1985)
793:(1978)
785:(1970)
777:(1959)
769:(1922)
750:(1932)
731:(2012)
723:(1982)
715:(1976)
707:(1971)
699:(1824)
680:(2023)
672:(1993)
664:(1992)
656:(1990)
648:(1976)
640:(1833)
621:(2024)
613:(2016)
605:(2013)
597:(1978)
589:(1970)
581:(1962)
573:(1906)
565:(1896)
557:(1834)
538:(1993)
530:(1992)
522:(1990)
514:(1932)
474:(2002)
466:(1962)
458:(1922)
450:(1900)
442:(1896)
434:(1887)
426:(1884)
412:Clause
357:
351:
348:
345:Justia
342:
339:
333:
330:
324:
286:,
149:
147:·
145:
137:
135:·
133:
125:
123:·
121:
113:
111:·
109:
80:L. Ed.
841:Other
318:
290:
320:U.S.
292:U.S.
82:1005
73:more
65:U.S.
63:113
316:113
295:328
288:113
68:328
1157::
314:,
385:e
378:t
371:v
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.