Isaacs v. United States
| Citation | 159 U.S. 487,16 S.Ct. 51,40 L.Ed. 229 |
| Decision Date | 11 November 1895 |
| Docket Number | No. 609,609 |
| Parties | ISAACS v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Defendant admitted that Cushing was last his house on the day that Cushing was last seen alive, and said that he rode away with one Jack Chewey, who told him the next day that he had killed the peddler. He admitted that he had never asked Chewey any questions as to when, how, or where he had killed him, and that he had never told any person that Cheway had told him of the killing. Five witnesses also swore that defendant told them that he and Chewey had killed a white peddler at a time corresponding with the disappearance of Cushing.
The jury found the defendant guilty of murder as charged in the first count of the indictment, and the court sentenced him to be hanged, whereupon he sued out this writ of error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
In the absence of an oral argument and of a brief by plaintiff in error, we are compelled to dispose of this case upon the record and the brief of the attorney general.
1. The first error assigned is to the action of the court in overruling a motion for a continuance, requested because of the absence of a material witness for the defense.
That the action of the trial court upon an application for a continuance is purely a matter of discretion, and not subject to review by this court, unless it be clearly shown that such discretion has been abused, is settled by too many authorites to be now open to question. Woods v. Young, 4 Cranch, 237; Barrow V. Hill, 13 How. 54; Crumpton v. U. S., 138 U. S. 361, 11 Sup. Ct. 355; Cox v. Hart, 145 U. S. 376, 12 Sup. Ct. 962; Earnshaw v. U. S., 146 U. S. 60, 68, 13 Sup. Ct. 14; Means v. Bank, 146 U. S. 620, 13 Sup. Ct. 186. It appears that 49 days before the case was called for trial an application was made and granted to have the witness whose testimony was desired, summoned at the expense of the government, the affidavit showing that she was within the jurisdiction of the court. It was not shown that any diligence was used to procure the attendance of the witness, or that any attachment was asked for, although the trial continued for several days, or why the subpoena was not served. The affidavit did not show that the defendant could not make the same proof by other witnesses, or that he could not safely go to trial without the testimony of the witness in question. In fact, all that the affidavit showed that the witness could prove was established by other testimony, including that of the defendant himself. There was clearly no abuse of discretion.
2. The second assignment was to the charge of the court 'that the fact that the man killed was a white man might be shown by the statement of the defendant in establishing the corpus delicti.'
The charge of the court is not accurately set out in the assignment, but was, in substance, that the fact that Cushing was a white man might be shown by the testimony of the defendant as well as by any other means, or that it might be shown by that in connection with other facts and circumstances.
We do not understand that any inference can properly be drawn from this that the court intended to charge that the corpus delicti might be shown by the mere statement of the defendant, but only that his statement, taken in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. United States
... ... The question ... presented was after all one of judicial discretion and not ... subject to review, except where it is clearly shown that the ... discretion has been abused. Hardy v. United States, ... 186 U.S. 224, 22 Sup.Ct. 889, 46 L.Ed. 1137; Isaacs v ... United States, 159 U.S. 487, 489, 16 Sup.Ct. 51, 40 ... L.Ed. 229; Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 248, ... 31 Sup.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021, 20 Ann.Cas. 1138. The trial ... judge and the counsel alike exercised a marked degree of care ... and caution in securing fair and unbiased ... ...
-
Neufield v. United States
...of the judge to whom application is made. Avery v. Alabama, 1940, 308 U.S. 444, 60 S.Ct. 321, 84 L.Ed. 377; Isaacs v. United States, 1895, 159 U.S. 487, 16 S.Ct. 51, 40 L.Ed. 229; Tomlinson v. United States, 1937, 68 App.D.C. 106, 93 F.2d 652, 114 A.L.R. 1315, certiorari denied, 1938, 303 U......
-
MacKenna v. Ellis
...abused, is settled by too many authorities to be now open to question citing five Supreme Court cases." Isaacs v. United States, 1895, 159 U.S. 487, 489, 16 S.Ct. 51, 52, 40 L.Ed. 229. And see also Hardy v. United States, 1902, 186 U.S. 224, 22 S.Ct. 889, 46 L.Ed. 1137; and Avery v. Alabama......
-
Stassi v. United States
...have been well taken. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Volk, 151 U. S. 73, 14 S. Ct. 239, 38 L. Ed. 78." In Isaacs v. United States, 159 U. S. 487, 490, 16 S. Ct. 51, 53, 40 L. Ed. 229, the rule was stated: "The next assignment is to the charge `that the corpus delicti could be established by......
-
Standard of Review (state and Federal): a Primer
...146 U.S. 60, 68 (1892) (and cases cited therein). 113. Means v. Bank of Randall. 146 U.S. 620, 629 (1892). 114. Isaacs v. United States, 159 U.S. 487, 489 (1895) (citing both Earnshaw and Means, among others, as authority for the 115. For a more detailed discussion of judicial review of age......