John Johnson v. Luman Hoy
| Decision Date | 03 February 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 842,842 |
| Citation | 33 S.Ct. 240,227 U.S. 245,57 L.Ed. 497 |
| Parties | JOHN A. JOHNSON, Appt., v. LUMAN T. HOY, United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Benjamin C. Bachrach for appellant.
Solicitor General Bullitt for appellee.
On November 7, 1912, Johnson was indicted for a violation of the white slave traffic act (36 Stat. at L. 825, chap. 395, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1343). He was arrested, and the court fixed his bail at $30,000, but declined to accept as surety anyone who was indemnified against loss, or to permit the defendant to deposit cash in lieu of bond. The defendant thereupon applied for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground (1) that excessive bail was required, on terms onerous and prohibitive, and (2) that the act under which he had been indicted was unconstitutional and void. After a hearing the petition was denied and he appealed to this court, where a motion was made that he be admitted to bail pending the hearing. This was resisted by the Solicitor General, and, before a decision thereon, was abandoned. On appellant's motion the case was advanced, to be heard with others involving the constitutionality of the same act. The defendant's counsel took part in the argument of that question, January 6, 1913. From an affidavit attached to the brief of the government, submitted at that time, it ap- pears that, on November 15, 1912, Johnson had given bond, which had been approved by the district judge, and had been released from arrest under the indictment. The petitioner insists that the release on bail was known to the government when the motion to advance was made, and not then having been urged, he is now entitled to a decision on the constitutional question argued, so that, if in his favor, he would avoid re-arrest and trial.
The writ of habeas corpus is not intended to serve the office of a writ of error even after verdict; and, for still stronger reasons, it is not available to a defendant before trial, except in rare and exceptional cases, as pointed out in Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 29 L. ed. 868, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734. This is an effort to nullify that rule, and to depart from the regular course of criminal proceedings by securing from this court, in advance, a decision on an issue of law which the defendant can raise in the district court, with the right, if convicted, to a writ of error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hayman
...the same result would have followed under our decisions. Stack v. Boyle, 1951, 342 U.S. 1, 6—7, 72 S.Ct. 1, 4—5; Johnson v. Hoy, 1913, 227 U.S. 245, 33 S.Ct. 240, 57 L.Ed. 497; Ex parte Royall, 1886, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868. 41 Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 1946......
-
Parker v. Ellis
...26, 79 L.Ed. 238. 'Without restraint of liberty, the writ will not issue.' Id., 293 U.S. 138, 55 S.Ct. 27. See also Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U.S. 245, 33 S.Ct. 240, 57 L.Ed. 497.* 'It is well settled that this court will not proceed to adjudication where there is no subject-matter on which the j......
-
Hensley v. 8212 1428
...1040 (1970). 8 Insofar as former decisions, Stallings v. Splain, 253 U.S. 339, 40 S.Ct. 537, 64 L.Ed 940 (1920); Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U.S. 245, 33 S.Ct. 240, 57 L.Ed. 497 (1913); Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 18 S.Ct. 323, 42 L.Ed.2d 748 (1898); Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 5 S.Ct. 1050, ......
-
Matysek v. United States
...on bail, was not restrained of her liberty, so as to be entitled to discharge on habeas corpus." Id. at 404. In Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U.S. 245, 33 S.Ct. 240, 57 L.Ed. 497 (1913), the Court said: "Since the appeal he defendant has given bond in the district court, and has been released from ar......
-
Confining Custody
...a nullity"). [147]Parker, 362 U.S at 575. [148]Id. at 576. [149]293 U.S. 131 (1934). [150]Parker, 362 U.S at 575 (citing Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U.S. 245, 248 [151]Id. at 577. [152]28 U.S.C. §2243 (1948). [153]Parker, 362 U.S. at 582 (Warren, C.J., dissenting) (citing 28 U.S.C. §2241(c) (1948))......