Post v. United States
Decision Date | 23 March 1896 |
Docket Number | No. 694,694 |
Citation | 40 L.Ed. 816,161 U.S. 583,16 S.Ct. 611 |
Parties | POST v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
At June term, 1894, of the district court for the district of Minnesota, held at St. Paul, in the Third division of the district, the grand jury for the district presented, on July 20, 1894, two indictments against George W. Post, under section 5493 of the Revised Statutes, for subornation of perjury on February 3, 1894, at Duluth, in the Fifth division.
To each indictment the defendant pleaded not guilty, with leave to withdraw his plea at October term, 1894, held at St. Paul, to which the cases were continued. At that term he withdrew his plea, and demurred to each indictment for want of jurisdiction in the court to take cognizance of the matters and things therein set forth, because the offenses were alleged to have been committed in the Fifth division of the district, and the indictment was found and presented at a term held at St. Paul, in the district and outside of that division. The demurrer was overruled, the defendant pleaded not guilty to each indictment, the two cases were consolidated by order of the court for trial, the jury returned verdicts or guilty; the defendant moved in arrest of judgment for want of jurisdiction in the court to try him upon the indictments, the motion was overruled, and the defendant was sentenced to be imprisoned three years in the penitentiary and to pay a fine of $2,000, and sued out this writ of error.
By stipulation in writing of counsel, it was agreed that there should be added to the record, as if in obedience to a writ of certiorari for diminution thereof, an order of the district court directing the record to be amended by setting forth the following facts: The grand jury for the district of Minnesota at June term, 1894, was duly impaneled, July 5, 1894, and then entered upon the discharge of its duties for the entire district of Minnesota, and was continuously in session from that day to and including July 20, 1894, and on this last day returned these two indictments, and made its final report, and was discharged by the court. All the persons whose names were indorsed upon the indictments were duly summoned in these cases before the grand jury prior to July 5, 1894, and obedience to such summons were in actual attendance upon the court prior to July 12, 1894.
James K. Redington, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
By the Revised Statutes, as by the previous act admitting the state of Minnesota into the Union, the whole state was constituted one judicial district. Act May 11, 1858, c. 31, § 3; 11 Stat. 285; Rev. St. § 531. By Act April 26, 1890, c. 167, which took effect August 1, 1890, the district of Minnesota was divided into six divisions for the purpose of holding terms of court. The courts for the Third division, which included St. Paul, were to be held at St. Paul, on the fourth Tuesday in June and the second Tuesday in January; and the courts for the Fifth division, which included Duluth, were to be held at Duluth, on the second Tuesday in May and the second Tuesday in October. A grand jury and petit jury might be summoned at each term, and the criminal jurisdiction of the court was in no wise restricted to a particular division. 26 Stat. 72.
But by Act July 12, 1894, c. 132, entitled 'An act regulating the procedure in criminal causes in the district of Minnesota,' it was enacted, in section 1, that 'all criminal proceedings instituted for the trial of offenses against the laws of the United States arising in the district of Minnesota shall be brought, had and prosecuted in the division of said district in which such offenses were committed,' and, in section 2, that 'this act shall take effect upon its passage.' 28 Stat. 102.
As was said by this court in a recent case, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Murtha
...before a court or judicial officer...." (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 1204, col. 1; see also Post v. United States (1896) 161 U.S. 583, 587, 16 S.Ct. 611, 613, 40 L.Ed. 816 ["Criminal proceedings cannot be said to be brought or instituted until a formal charge is openly made against ......
-
Ex Parte Wolters
...criminal proceeding is the manner in which the government punishes a man guilty of crime." And in the case of Post v. United States, 161 U. S. 583, 16 Sup. Ct. 611, 40 L. Ed. 816, it is held criminal proceedings cannot be said to be brought until a formal charge is made against the accused,......
-
Hopkinson v. Shillinger
...the statute and case law in question are more of a procedural rather than a substantive nature. See Post v. United States, 161 U.S. 583, 16 S.Ct. 611, 40 L.Ed. 816 (1896) (statute requiring criminal proceedings to take place in a district which it created is not a matter of substantive law,......
-
United States v. Bink
...38 Weinberg v. United States, supra. 39 Lewis v. United States, 279 U.S. 63, 49 S.Ct. 257, 73 L.Ed. 615. 40 Post v. United States. 161 U.S. 583, 16 S.Ct. 611, 40 L.Ed. 816. 41 A procedural rule can not extend the constitutional powers of federal courts and hence a controversy had by implead......
-
TERRITORIALITY IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW.
...(207.) Kershen II, supra note 57, at 4. (208.) Id. at 5 (discussing Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263 (1892), Post v. United States, 161 U.S. 583 (1896), and Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U.S. 257 (209.) Silverberg v. United States, 4 F.2d 908, 909 (5th Cir. 1925). (210.) Hagner v. Un......