Holder v. United States
| Decision Date | 30 October 1893 |
| Docket Number | No. 826,826 |
| Citation | 150 U.S. 91,14 S.Ct. 10,37 L.Ed. 1010 |
| Parties | HOLDER v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
Holder was convicted of the murder of one Bickford, in the Choctaw Nation, on December 24, 1891. Upon the trial, three exceptions were saved, namely, to the overruling of objections to the testimony of a witness who had been present during the examination of the other witnesses, in disobedience of an order of court on that subject; to the entire charge of the court; and to the denial of a motion for a new trial.
1. It seems that the court directed the witnesses, except the one under examination, to be excluded from the court room, and that John Bickford, an uncle of the deceased, remained, notwithstanding, but that no objection on that ground was made to Bickford testifying, until after he had done so, other evidence had intervened, and he was recalled to testify in rela- tion to the turning over to him by the United States marshal of some personal property of the deceased.
It was then objected that he had heard the testimony of the other witnesses, in disregard of the direction of the court in that behalf, and the objection was overruled.
Upon the motion or suggestion of either party, such a direction as that in question is usually given. If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt, and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground, merely, although the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court. 1 Greenl. Ev. (15th Ed.) § 432, and cases cited; Chandler v. Horne, 2 Moody & R. 423; Rex v. Colley, Moody & M. 329; Bulliner v. People, 95 Ill. 394; State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 179, 17 Atl. Rep. 483; Laughlin v. State, 18 Ohio, 99; Wilson v. State, 52 Ala. 299; Lassiter v. State, 67 Ga. 739; Smith v. State, 4 Lea, 428; Hubbard v. Hubbard, 7 Or. 42. Clearly, the action of the court in admitting the testimony will not, ordinarily, be open to revision. Tested by these principles, the exception under consideration cannot be sustained.
2. There is no pretense that the charge of the court, occupying 24 pages of the printed record, was erroneous in every part, and no exception to any particular part is shown. The rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nguyen, (AC 17107)
...(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Barletta, 238 Conn. 313, 322, 680 A.2d 1284 (1996). In Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92, 14 S. Ct. 10, 37 L. Ed. 1010 (1893), the Supreme Court held that a defense witness' violation of a sequestration order, without more, did not warrant......
-
Greene v. United States
... ... the order to denote such exception. The order was made before ... the charge was delivered, so it would be difficult to place ... that construction on the order; but an exception to an entire ... charge would not raise any question for review. Holder v ... United States, 150 U.S. 91, 14 Sup.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed ... 1010; Bogk v. Gassert, 149 U.S. 17, 13 Sup.Ct. 738, ... 37 L.Ed. 631 ... The ... attorneys for the United States had the right to ask that the ... usual rule be followed. There could be no sound reason, not ... even ... ...
-
Fendler v. Goldsmith
...witnesses involved from testifying if their testimony was tainted by the lack of sequestration. See, e.g., Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); Braswell v. Wainwright, 463 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir.1972). 10 Discovery rules, on the other hand, have no effect on ......
-
State v. Burke
...of a sequestration order unless special circumstances exist that would warrant the preclusion. See, e.g., Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); United States v. Torbert, 496 F.2d 154 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 857, 95 S.Ct. 105, 42 L.Ed.2d 91 (1974......
-
Chapter 5 - § 5.1 • PRELIMINARY MATTERS
...Note, however, that disqualifying a witness is a severe sanction to be imposed only after careful consideration. Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 (1893); see also Melendez, 102 P.3d at 319. There are three principal factors the court should consider in determining a sanction: 1) Evi......
-
§ 19.08 SANCTIONS
...some circumstances, the Court also indicated that exclusion is not always constitutional.42--------Notes:[39] See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 (1893) (The witness's "testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct."); People v. Melendez, 102 P.3d 315, 319 (Colo......
-
§ 19.08 Sanctions
...circumstances, the Court also indicated that exclusion is not always constitutional.42 --------Notes:[39] See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 (1893) (The witness's "testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct."); People v. Melendez, 102 P.3d 315, 319 (Colo. 20......