Ex parte Bigelow, Petitioner
| Citation | 28 L.Ed. 1005,113 U.S. 328,5 S.Ct. 542 |
| Parties | Ex parte BIGELOW, Petitioner |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1885 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Robert Christy, for petitioner.
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus to release the petitioner from imprisonment in the jail of the District of Columbia, where he is held, as he alleges, unlawfully by John S. Crocker, the warden of said, jail. He presents with the petition the record of his conviction and sentence in the supreme court of the district to imprisonment for five years, under an indictment for embezzlement; and this record and the petition of the applicant present all that could be brought before us on a return to the writ, if one were awarded. We are thus, on this application for the writ, placed in possession of the merits of the case.
The single point on which petitioner relies, arises out of the following facts which occurred at the trial. There were pending before the court 14 indictments against the petitioner for embezzlement as an officer of the Bank of the Republic, and an order of the court had directed that they be consolidated under the statute and tried together. A jury was then impaneled and sworn, and the district attorney had made a statement of his case to the jury, when the court took a recess. Upon reconvening a short time afterwards, the court decided that the indictments could not be well tried together; directed the jury to be discharged from further consideration of them; and rescinded the order of consolidation. The prisoner was thereupon tried before the same jury on one of those indictments and found guilty. All of this was against his protest and without his consent. The judgment was taken by appeal to the supreme court in general term, where it was affirmed.
It is argued here, as it was in the court in general term, that the impaneling and swearing the jury, and the statement of his case by the district attorney, put the prisoner in jeopardy with regard to all the offenses charged in the consolidated indictments, within the meaning of the fifth amendment of the consitution, so that he could not be again tried for any of those offenses. That amendment declares, among other things, that no person 'shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, * * * nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' If the transaction, as thus stated, brings the prisoner's case within this principle of the constitution, the court committed an error. On account of this error, among others assigned, the case was carried by appeal to the court in general term, where the matter was heard by other judges, and, after full consideration, the judgment of the trial court was ffirmed.
No appeal or writ of error in such case as that lies to this court. The act of congress has made the judgment of that court conclusive, as it had a right to do, and the defendant, having one review of his trial and judgment, has no special reason to complain. It is said, however, that the court below exceeded its jurisdiction, and that this court has the power, in such case and for that reason, to discharge the prisoner from confinement under a void sentence. The proposition itself is sound if the facts justify the conclusion that the court of the district was without authority in the matter. But that court had jurisdiction of the offense described in the indictment on which the prisoner was tried. It had jurisdiction of the prisoner, who was properly brought before the court. It had jurisdiction to hear the charge and the evidence against the prisoner. It had jurisdiction to hear and to decide upon the defenses offered by him. The matter now presented was one of those defenses. Whether it was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Keys
...an erroneous sentence and a void one was self-evident, see 100 U.S. at 375, it later candidly acknowledged in Ex parte Bigelow , 113 U.S. 328, 5 S. Ct. 542, 28 L. Ed. 1005 (1885), "It may be confessed that it is not always very easy to determine what matters go to the jurisdiction of [the d......
-
Brown v. Davenport
...S.Ct. 770, 35 L.Ed. 510 (1891) ; In re Wood , 140 U.S. 278, 286–287, 11 S.Ct. 738, 35 L.Ed. 505 (1891) ; Ex parte Bigelow , 113 U.S. 328, 330–331, 5 S.Ct. 542, 28 L.Ed. 1005 (1885) ; Ex parte Crouch , 112 U.S. 178, 180, 5 S.Ct. 96, 28 L.Ed. 690 (1884) ; Ex parte Parks , 93 U.S. 18, 21, 23 L......
-
Dorsey v. Gill
...of the court whose judgment of conviction is challenged. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 375, 25 L.Ed. 717; Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328, 331, 5 S.Ct. 542, 544, 28 L.Ed. 1005; Matter of Gregory, 219 U.S. 210, 213, 31 S. Ct. 143, 55 L.Ed. 184; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U.S. 420, 429, 32 S.Ct. ......
-
Sunal v. Large Alexander v. United States Kulick
...602, 50 L.Ed. 984. (3) Violation by federal courts of specific constitutional rights: (a) double jeopardy. Compare Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328, 5 S.Ct. 542, 28 L.Ed. 1005 with In re Snow, 120 U.S. 274, 7 S.Ct. 556, 30 L.Ed. 658, and Ex parte Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U.S. 176, 9 S.Ct. 672......
-
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
...that the defendant's lawyer had not been admitted to the bar); In re Wood, 140 U.S. 278, 290 (1891) (same as Andrews); Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328, 328-29, 331 (1885) (refusing to address a Double Jeopardy Clause claim not involving multiple (21.) 237 U.S. 309 (1915). (22.) Id. at 309. (......