Commonwealth v. St. John
| Decision Date | 29 June 1899 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. ST. JOHN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
C.L. Gardner, Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Brooks & Hamilton, for defendants.
The decisive question in each of these cases is the same, and they may therefore properly be considered together. The question is whether the immunity that was promised by the city marshal and by Boyle, the chief detective of the police department of Springfield, to the defendants, can be pleaded in bar of the indictment against them. We think that it cannot. The immunity and protection which may be promised from the consequences of crime on condition of a full disclosure and readiness to testify are not a matter of right, but rest in the last resort on the sound judicial discretion of the court having final jurisdiction to sentence, and cannot, therefore, be pleaded in bar. Wight v. Rindskopf, 43 Wis. 344; State v. Moody, 69 N.C. 529; State v. Graham, 41 N.J.Law, 15; Rex v. Rudd, Cowp. 331; Whart.Cr.Ev. §§ 439, 443; 3 Russ. Crimes (9th Am.Ed.) *599. When such promises are made by the public prosecutor, or with his authority, the court will see that due regard is paid to them, and that the public faith which has been pledged by him is duly kept. The prosecuting officer has also the power to enter a nolle prosequi. It appears in both of these cases that neither the city marshal nor Boyle had any authority from the district attorney to make the promises or hold out the inducements which they did. There is nothing in either bill of exceptions tending to show that the district attorney had anything to do with the prosecution in the police court. Neither of the defendants appeared before the grand jury although they were at the court house from day to day when the grand jury was in session, ready to testify, relying on the promises of immunity made by the city marshal and by Boyle; and there is nothing tending to show that there was any expectation or understanding on the part of the district attorney that either was to testify as a government witness in the superior court, and neither did so testify. If an appeal had been made to the clemency of the court, it would no doubt have been competent for the court to take into consideration the inducements which had been held out, and the promises that had been made, if any, by the city marshal and by Boyle. But what was done...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Levasseur
...that due regard is paid to them, and that the public faith which has been pledged by him is duly kept. Commonwealth v. St. John, 173 Mass. 566, 569, 54 N.E. 254 (1899) (Morton, J.). Here the district attorney [sought] to repudiate the agreement made by an assistant district attorney.... In ......
-
US v. Levasseur, 86-180-Y.
...will see that due regard is paid to them, and that the public faith which has been pledged by him is duly kept. Commonwealth v. St. John, 173 Mass. 566, 569 (1899) (Morton, J.). Here the district attorney sought to repudiate the agreement made by an assistant district attorney.... In our op......
-
Hammers v. State, CR
...Md. 1, 73 A. 637 (1909); State v. Guild, 149 Mo. 370, 50 S.W. 909 (1899); State v. Graham, 41 N.J.L. 15 (1879); Commonwealth v. St. John, 173 Mass. 566, 54 N.E. 254 (1899); Wight v. Rindskopf, 43 Wis. 344 (1877). See also, Annot, 13 A.L.R.2d 1439; State v. Crow, supra. It is only appropriat......
-
People v. Stapinski
...v. McInnis, 429 F.3d 1, 5–6 (1st Cir. 2005) ; United States v. White, 270 F.3d 356, 366–67 (6th Cir.2001) ; Commonwealth v. St. John, 173 Mass. 566, 54 N.E. 254, 254 (1899) ; Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 539 Pa. 428, 652 A.2d 1294, 1295 (1995) ; State v. Reed, 75 Wash.App. 742, 879 P.2d 1000,......