Clawson v. United States
Decision Date | 20 April 1885 |
Citation | 114 U.S. 477,29 L.Ed. 179,5 S.Ct. 949 |
Parties | CLAWSON v. UNITED STATES. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
F. S. Richards and Wayne MacVeagh, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for defendant in error.
At April term, 1884, of the Third judicial district court of Utah territory, Rudger Clawson was indicted, under two counts, in the same indictment, one for polygamy, and the other for cohabiting with more than one woman. The first count was founded on section 5352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended by section 1 of the act of congress of March 22, 1882, (22 St. 30;) and the second on section 3 of that act. By section 4, counts for those offenses may be joined in the same indictment. The defendant was tried in October, 1884, and found guilty on both counts, as charged; and sentenced, on the first count, to pay a fine of $500, and to be imprisoned three years and six months; and, on the second count, to pay a further fine of $300, and to be imprisoned the further term of six months; and, further, to be confined till the fines be paid. From this judgment he appealed to the supreme court of the territory, which affirmed the judgment and sentence, and he has brought the case to this court by a writ of error.
The indictment was presented and filed in court, April 24, 1884. On the thirtieth of April, 1884, before plea, the defendant moved to set aside the indictment, on the ground that the grand jury was not legally constituted, in that qualified grand jurors, drawn and summoned, were illegally excluded from the grand jury, on the challenge of the prosecuting attorney. The motion was heard on an agreed statement of facts, which is set out in the bill of exceptions, and was overruled, and the defendant excepted to the decision. The first error here assigned is that that motion was improperly overruled.
By section 4 of the act of congress of June 23, 1874, (18 St. 254.) entitled 'An act in relation to courts and judicial officers in the territory of Utah,' it is provided as follows: * * *'
A jury-list of 200 persons, from which to draw grand and petit jurors for the Third judicial district court for the year 1884, was made, certified, and filed in the office of the clerk of the court, under the above-cited provisions of the act of June 23, 1874, and a number was set opposite to each name. Those having even numbers opposite to their names were selected by the probate judge, and were reputed Mormons, and those having odd numbers opposite to their names were selected by the clerk of the court, and were reputed not to be Mormons. On the thirty-first of March, 1884, at a session of the court, 30 names were drawn from the jury-list, from which to impanel a grand jury for the April term, 1884. Of these 30, 13 had e en numbers, and 17 odd numbers. Of the 30, 5 did not appear, or were excused, leaving 25, of whom 10 had even numbers and 15 odd numbers. Those 25 persons, during the proceedings to impanel the grand jury, were all called and sworn, and examined as to their qualifications as grand jurors, 15 of them being each asked the following questions: Each of the 15 persons so interrogated answered the questions affirmatively. Each was thereupon challenged by the prosecuting attorney, and the court allowed the challenges, and excluded each of those 15 persons from the grand jury. Thus every one of the 25 persons who was a reputed Mormon was excluded from the grand jury. Each of the 15 persons so interrogated had all the qualifications prescribed by law for grand jurors, unless disqualified by such answers. The defendant had not been charged with, or held to answer, the offenses charged in the indictment, or any criminal offense, at the time the grand jury was impaneled; the examination of the persons called as grand jurors, and the challenges, were wholly conducted and made by the prosecuting attorney; and no questions were propounded to or answered by persons with odd numbers opposite their names, respecting their religious belief. After those 15 persons were excluded, only 10 grand jurors accepted by the United States remained, out of the list of 30 originally drawn; and thereupon the court ordered a drawing of 10 additional names from the general list of 200, which was done, 3 having even numbers, and 7 odd numbers. A venire was issued for the 10, and 6 of them appeared, all having odd numbers, and 5 of the 6 were added to the 10 accepted, and the jury, as impaneled and sworn, consisted of those 15, all of them reputed non-Mormons, and it found and presented the indictment against the defendant.
The challenging and exclusion of the 15 persons is maintained to have been proper, under section 5 of the act of March 22, 1882, before referred to, and which reads as follows: 'That in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, under any statute of the United States, it shall be sufficient cause of challenge to any person drawn or summoned as a juryman or talesman First, that he is or has been living in the practice of bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation with more than one woman, or that he is or has been guilty of an offense punishable by either of the foregoing sections, or by section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or the act of July 1, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled
As each of the 15 persons challenged and excluded anwered, when questioned on oath, that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead
...cohabitation, Cannon v. United States, 116 U.S. 55, 78-79, 6 S.Ct. 278, 290-91, 29 L.Ed. 561 (1884); Clawson v. United States, 114 U.S. 477, 487-88, 5 S.Ct. 949, 954, 29 L.Ed. 179 (1884). See Larson II, at The final, devastating blow to the Mormon Church and the practice of polygamy was str......
-
Johnson v. State
...of an open venire to complete the jury. (Carter v. Territory, 3 Wyo. 193; Gunnell v. State, 21 Wyo. 125; Clawson v. U.S. 4 Utah 34, 114 U.S. 477; Mitsunaga v. People, 54 Colo. E. Denver Munic. Irr. Dist. v. Altura Farm Co., 60 Colo. 452; Moore v. State, 9 Okla. 9.) METZ, District Judge. BLU......
-
Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls Land & Water Co.
...that may be obtained by means of such statements or bills of particulars. (United States v. Clawson, 4 Utah 34, 5 P. 689; same case, 114 U.S. 477, 114 U.S. 477, 5 S.Ct. 949, 29 L.Ed. Commonwealth v. Snelling, 32 Mass. 321, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 321.) We have no doubt of the power of the court in......
-
Crosby v. State
... ... The term "juror" is sometimes held to ... include both grand and petit jurors. Clawson v. United ... States, 114 U.S. 477, 5 S.Ct. 949, 29 L.Ed. 179; ... Spencer v. United States, ... ...
-
Natural law and the rhetoric of empire: Reynolds v. United States, polygamy, and imperialism.
...v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890); Ex Parte Snow, 120 U.S. 274 (1887); Cannon v. United States, 116 U.S. 55 (1885); Clawson v. United States, 114 U.S. 477 (1885); Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885); Clawson v. United States, 113 U.S. 143 (1885); Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 304 (1880). (......