Ex parte Coy et al
Decision Date | 14 May 1888 |
Citation | 127 U.S. 731,32 L.Ed. 274,8 S.Ct. 1263 |
Parties | Ex parte COY et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
D. W. Voorhees and Cyrus F. McNutt, for appellants.
Atty. Gen. Garland and E. B. Sellers, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana. The case in that court arose upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus made on behalf of Simeon Coy and William F. A. Bernhamer, whose petition alleged that they were restrained of their liberty and detained in the custody of Edward Hawkins, the marshal of the United States for the district of Indiana, and Isaac King, sheriff of Marion county in that state, who claimed to hold the prisoners under the authority of a judgment of the United States district court. The petition sets forth the nature of the proceedings by which they were indicted and tried in that court, wherein they were found guilty of the charges specified in the indictment. The sentence of the court was 'that the said William F. A. Bernhamer make his fine to the United States in the sum of one thousand dollars, and that he be imprisoned in the state prison north (of said state) for the period of one year; and that the said Simeon Coy make his fine to the United States in the sum of one hundred dollars, and that he be imprisoned in the said state prison for the period of eighteen months.' The prisoners were thereupon committed to the charge of the marshal, in whose custody they were at the time when this petition was filed. The petitioners also presented a copy of the indictment, attached to their petition, which they say charges no offense against the United States, and that the federal district court and the grand jury thereof had no jurisdiction in the premises. They allege that the action of said grand jury in returning the indictment, and of the court and the marshal thereof in taking them into custody and restraining them of their liberty under and by virtue of the judgment, order, and commitment of said court, are wholly void, and the imprisonment of the petitioners unlawful. To this petition praying for a writ of habeas corpus a demurrer was filed by the attorney of the United States for said district on behalf of the marshal and the sheriff. Upon the hearing of that demurrer it was sustained by the circuit court which refused to issue the writ as prayed in the petition. From this judgment the prisoners took an appeal to the supreme court, which was allowed, and the same has been very fully argued in this court, both on their behalf and on the part of the government.
The record presented to us is very simple, there being no other statement of the proceedings had upon the indictment than is contained in that instrument itself, and the judgment of the court upon the trial. As the circuit court refused to grant the writ of habeas corpus, there is no return by the marshal and the sheriff so that we have none of the facts or evidence in the case except as they are detailed in the indictment. The only question raised by the petitioners, supported by several points in regard to the statutes applicable thereto, is that the district court which tried the indictment had no jurisdiction. This proposition is founded, not upon any want of jurisdiction of the person, but upon the broad statement that the indictment presents no crime or offense under the laws of the United States.
The indictment itself is of considerable length, although consisting of but one count. It reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carmen, Application of
... ... See Ex Parte Wallace, 81 Okl.Cr. 176, 162 P.2d 205, infra. The sanction of such procedure would permit piecemeal litigation of factual issues which should be finally determined upon a single trial. Federal jurisdiction over offenses which are committed within the boundaries of this state and which are defined ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Huntley
... ... open to some objections, the power of the court to hear and ... determine questions involving the constitutionality of a ... statute is established. Sennott's Case, 146 Mass. 489, 16 ... N.E. 448; Herrick v. Smith, 1 Gray, 1, 49; Ex parte ... Siebold, 100 U.S. 371; In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 8 ... S.Ct. 1263; Nielsen's Petitioner, 131 U.S. 176, 9 S.Ct ... 672; People ... [156 Mass. 238] ... v. Liscomb, 60 N.Y. 559. See, also, Feeley's Case, 12 ... Cush. 598; Conlon's Case, 148 Mass. 168, 172, 19 N.E ... 164. If St.1891, ... ...
-
United States v. Reincke
...corpus will not be used as a substitute for a writ of error, Ex parte Parks, 93 U.S. 18, 23 L.Ed. 787 (1876); In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 8 S.Ct. 1263, 32 L.Ed. 274 (1888), it has been held with consistency that, "Attacks upon the sufficiency of the evidence and the veracity of witnesses canno......
-
43 541 United States v. Feola 8212 1123
...in the case of the substantive statute, and at least two decisions repudiate respondent's contentions to the contrary, In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 8 S.Ct. 1263, 32 L.Ed. 274; United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 914 S.Ct. 1112, 28 L.Ed.2d 356. Pp. (b) The principle of the Crimmins case, supra......
-
Election Law Violations
...EnforcementActs.htm . 227. DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 1, at 19. 228. Ex parte Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 752 (1888). This reasoning is still applicable today. DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 1, at 21; see also United States v. Smilowitz, 974 F.3d 155, 161–62 (2d Cir. 20......
-
Election law violations.
...299 (1941). (11.) Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140. (12.) See DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 21; see also In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731 (1888); Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (13.) DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 21. ......
-
Election law violations.
...(11.) Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140. (12.) See DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 21; see also Ex parte Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 752-55 (1888); Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651, 661-62 (1884); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 382 (1880). (13.) DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, s......
-
Election law violations.
...(11.) Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140. (12.) See DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 3, at 21; see also Exparte Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 752-55 (1888); Exparte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651, 661-62 (1884); Exparte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 382 (1880). (13.) DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supr......