Gut v. the State
| Decision Date | 01 December 1869 |
| Citation | 76 U.S. 35,9 Wall. 35,19 L.Ed. 573 |
| Parties | GUT v. THE STATE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Minnesota. The case was thus:
A statute of Minnesota, in force in 1866, required that criminal causes should be tried in the county where the offences were committed. The offence charged against the defendant was committed in December of that year, in the county of Brown, in that State. At that time four other counties, which were unorganized, were attached to Brown County for judicial purposes. On the 9th of March, 1867, a statute was passed by the legislature of the State authorizing the judge of the District Court, in cases where one or more counties were attached to another county for judicial purposes, to order, whenever he should consider it to be in furtherance of justice, or for the public convenience, that the place of holding the court should be changed from the county then designated by law to one of the other counties thus attached.
Under this act the judge of the district embracing Brown County ordered that the place of holding the court should be changed from that county to the county of Redwood, within the same district, and the change was accordingly made. The court subsequently held its sessions in Redwood County, where the defendant, in September, 1867, was indicted for murder in the first degree. The plea of not guilty having been interposed the case was transferred, on his motion, to Nicollet County, in an adjoining district, where he was tried, convicted, and sentenced. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State the judgment was affirmed, and the case was now brought to this court under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.
Mr. E. M. Wilson, for the plaintiff in error, contended in this court, as it was also contended in the court below, that the act of Minnesota, under which the court was held in Redwood County, and the grand jury were summoned, was unconstitutional so far as it authorized an indictment or trial there of an offence previously committed in Brown County; that it was in effect an ex post facto law, and, therefore, within the inhibition of the Federal Constitution.
Mr. F. R. E. Cornell, Attorney-General of Minnesota, contra.
Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:
The objection to the act of Minnesota, if there be any does not rest on the ground that it is an ex post facto law, and, therefore, within the inhibition of the Federal Constitution. It must rest, if it has any force, upon that provision of the State constitution which declares that, 'in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.' But the Supreme Court of the State has held that the act in question is not in conflict with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kolkman v. People
...... . [300 P. 577] . . trial of the two remaining defendants (while he is wholly. innocent of the charge filed against him) he will be. greatly prejudiced and his constitutional rights will be. violated and his right to a separate trial under the law of. the land and the statutes of the State of Colorado will be. dented.'. . . . We have. held that, unless the bill of exceptions discloses the. admission of prejudicial evidence, no error is committed in. denying a motion for a severance. Stone v. People, 71 Colo. 162, 167, 204 P. 897; Sarno v. People, 74 Colo. 528, ......
-
Hallock v. United States
...... challenges of petit jurors; (4) the evidence; (5) the. instructions. . . The. offenses were committed in Woodward county, territory of. Oklahoma. The indictment was not found nor the trial had. until after that territory and the Indian Territory were. admitted as the state of Oklahoma. The organic act of the. territory of Oklahoma in force when the offenses were. committed required their prosecution and trial in Woodward. county. The District Court of the United States in which the. accused was indicted and tried did not sit in Woodward. county. Upon this it is ......
-
Collins v. Youngblood
...or any commentator on the Constitution added to the classes of laws here set forth, as coming within that clause"); Gut v. State, 9 Wall. 35, 38, 19 L.Ed. 573 (1870). So well accepted were these principles that the Court in Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 46 S.Ct. 68, 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925), wa......
-
Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul v. United States
...defendants in respect to their offense or its consequences.” 138 U.S. 157, 183, 11 S.Ct. 268, 34 L.Ed. 906 (1891); accord Gut v. Minnesota, 76 U.S. 35, 38, 9 Wall. 35, 19 L.Ed. 573 (1869) (“An ex post facto law does not involve, in any of its definitions, a change of the place of trial of a......
-
It's an ex post facto fact: Supreme Court misapplies the ex post facto clause to criminal procedure.
...589 (1884); Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 228 (1883), rev'd on other grounds, Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990); Gut v. State, 9 Wall. 35, 38 (1870); Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 390-91 (1867) (Miller, J., dissenting); Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325-26 (184) Calder v. B......