Baldwin v. State of Kansas
Decision Date | 14 January 1889 |
Citation | 9 S.Ct. 193,32 L.Ed. 640,129 U.S. 52 |
Parties | BALDWIN v. STATE OF KANSAS. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
W. D. Webb and B. P. Waggener, for plaintiff in error.
S. B. Bradford, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of Kansas. William Baldwin was proceeded against in the district court of the Second judicial district of Kansas, sitting in and for Atchison county, by an information charging him with the crime of murder. On a trial before a jury, he was found guilty. A motion for a new trial was denied; and the judgment of the court was rendered that he be confined at hard labor in the penitentiary of the state for one year from January 11, 1886, and until the governor of the state should by order direct his execution, at which time, as specified in such order, not less than one year from that date, he should be hung. He removed the case by appeal to the supreme court of the state, and it affirmed the judgment in December, 1886. An application for a rehearing was denied in July, 1887. The case is brought here by him. The decision of the supreme court of Kansas is reported as State v. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1, 12 Pac. Rep. 318.
The errors assigned here are (1) that the jurors were not sworn according to the form of oath prescribed by the statute of Kansas, and that therefore the jury was not a legally constituted tribunal, and so the defendant will, under the judgment of the court, be deprived of his life without due process of law, and be denied the equal protection of the law; (2) that the evidence on which the judgment was founded was so inadequate to show that the defendant was guilty of the crime of murder that the judgment amounts to a denial to the defendant of the equal protection of the law.
As to the question of the oath administered to the jurors, the journal entry at the trial states that, issue being joined upon a plea of not guilty, there came a jury of 12 good and lawful men, whose names are given, 'having the qualifications of jurors, who, being duly elected, tried, and sworn well and truly to try the issue joined herein,' the trial proceeded. The bill of exceptions states that 'a jury was impaneled and sworn to well and truly try the issues joined herein.'
The statute of the state of Kansas provides (Comp. Laws Kan. c. 82, art. 11, § 208; Id. c. 80, art. 15, § 274) that 'the jury shall be sworn to well and truly try the matters submitted to them in the case in hearing, and a true verdict give, according to the law and the evidence.' The statute does not give in words the form of the oath. It is contended that the record affirmatively shows that the oath required by the statute of Kansas was not administered to the jurors, but that they were only sworn 'well and truly to try the issue joined herein,' or 'to well and truly try the issues joined herein.' The record does not purport to give ipsissimis verbis the form of the oath administered to the jurors. The statement of the oath is entirely consistent with the fact that the oath required by the statute of Kansas was administered, especially in view of the statement in the journal entry that the jurors were 'duly' sworn. On this subject, the supreme court of Kansas says correctly in its opinion: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lopez v. Lopez
...the argument that a mistake as to swearing potentialjurors to a jury questionnaire form raises any federal issues. See Baldwin v. State of Kansas, 129 U.S. 52, 56 (1889) (finding no federal issue in the allegedly improper swearing of a state court jury). Second, the state court found the cl......
-
Lucero v. Holland
...Court authority for the proposition that a mistake as to swearing potential jurors raises any federal issues. Cf. Baldwin v. State of Kansas, 129 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1889) (petitioner who alleged that the jury was improperly sworn pursuant to state statute presented no federal issue). This is e......
-
State v. O'Connor
...158, 100 L.Ed. 83; Parker v. People of State of Illinois (1948), 333 U.S. 571, 68 S.Ct. 708, 92 L.Ed. 886; Baldwin v. State of Kansas (1889), 129 U.S. 52, 9 S.Ct. 193, 32 L.Ed. 640; Spies v. People of State of Illinois (1887), 123 U.S. 131, 181, 8 S.Ct. 21, 31, 31 L.Ed. 80, 91; Leeper v. St......
-
State Ex Rel. Caldwell v. Wilson
...105 U. S. 667: Norton v. Shelby Co., 118 U. S. 425, 440, 6 Sup. Ct. 1121; Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359, 366; Baldwin v. Kansas, 129 U. S. 52, 57, 9 Sup. Ct. 193. "That law, in its regular course of administration through courts of justice, is due process, and, when secured by the l......