United States v. Jim Lee

• Decision Date: 29 June 1903
• Docket Number: 4,089.
• Citation: 123 F. 741
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. JIM LEE et al.

123 F. 741

UNITED STATES v. JIM LEE et al.

No. 4,089.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

June 29, 1903

B. F McKinley, Asst. U.S. Atty.

Denson & Schlesinger and Frank G. Drury, for defendants.

DE HAVEN, District Judge.

The defendants are under indictment for the crime of having had in their possession, with intent to fraudulently use the same, molds with an inscription thereon in the likeness of the inscription on dies used for coining genuine silver coins of the United States. They were placed upon trial before the court, and a jury impaneled to determine the question of their guilt or innocence, and thereafter, on May 28, 1903, at 1:30 o'clock p.m., the cause was regularly submitted to the jury for decision. The jurors were unable to agree upon a verdict, and were discharged by the court at 4 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m. of the same day. The entry upon the minutes of the court, so far as relates to the pending question, is as follows:

' * * * The court then charged the jury, who at 1 o'clock and thirty minutes p.m. retired to deliberate upon a verdict. By the court ordered that the jurors engaged in the trial of this case and two bailiffs be furnished meals at the expense of the United States. Subsequently, at 4 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m., the jurors returned into court, and upon being asked in the presence of the defendants and their attorney Mr. Drury, if they had agreed upon a verdict, said they had not agreed, and that it was impossible to agree; and the court being satisfied from the declarations of the jurors that the jurors could not agree on a verdict, and that it would be useless to require them to further deliberate, it is ordered that the jurors be, and they are hereby, discharged from the further consideration of this case.'

Upon the foregoing facts, and an affidavit to the effect that after the jurors retired to deliberate upon their verdict they were absent from the jury room for one hour for luncheon, attended by an officer of the court, the defendants ask to be discharged. In support of this motion counsel for defendants insist that the jurors were not given a reasonable time for deliberation, and were discharged without any necessary or reasonable cause therefor, and, such being the fact, it is argued that to again place the defendants upon trial would be in violation of rights secured to them by the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States which declares that no person shall 'be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ' The question thus presented is one which the court may properly determine upon the motion of defendants for their discharge. United States v. Haskell, 14 Wash.C.C. 402, Fed. Cas. No. 15,321; People v. Goodwin, 18 Johns. 187, 9 Am.Dec. 203.

The contention of defendants that the jury was discharged without any legal necessity therefor is not sustained by the record, which shows that such discharge was ordered by the court because of the inability of the jurors to agree upon a verdict. The discharge of the jury for such a cause is not, in judgment of law, equivalent to an acquittal, and when a defendant is b subsequently placed upon trial before another jury for the same offense he is not thereby 'twice put in jeopardy, within the meaning of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ' Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271, 15 Sup.Ct. 73, 39 L.Ed. 146; Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 298, 12 Sup.Ct. 617, 36 L.Ed. 429. In the case of United States v. Perez, reported in 27 F. Cas. 504, Fed. Cas. No. 16,033, it appears that the defendants had theretofore been placed upon trial before a jury upon a charge of piracy. The jurors, after deliberating four hours, informed the court that there was no prospect of an agreement, and were then discharged without the rendition of a verdict. The defendant thereupon moved to be discharged on the ground that the jury had been improperly discharged by the court. The Circuit Justice (Thompson) was of the opinion that the motion should be denied, and in giving his reasons therefor said:

'The court had power to discharge the jury

...