Lambert v. Barrett
| Decision Date | 18 November 1895 |
| Docket Number | No. 771,771 |
| Citation | 16 S.Ct. 135,159 U.S. 660,40 L.Ed. 296 |
| Parties | LAMBERT v. BARRETT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a final order of the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, denying the petition of Theodore Lambert for a writ of habeas corpus. It appeared from the petition that Lambert was convicted by the verdict of a jury, June 15, 1894, of the murder of William Kairer, in the court of oyer and terminer and general jail delivery of Camden county, N. J., and sentenced, October 13th, to be hanged on December 13, 1894; that on the 4th of December the governor of New Jersey granted a reprieve, suspending the execution of the sentence until January 3, 1895, and on December 22, 1894, issued a death warrant for the execution of Lambert on said 3d of January; that on December 29, 1894, application was made to one of the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the Third circuit for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied, and on January 2d an appeal was taken to this court; that on the same day a citation was issued to Barrett, sheriff of the county of Camden, in whose custody petitioner was, together with an order by one of the justices of this court, staying the execution of Lambert 'until the further order of this court.' It also appeared that the appeal was heard in this court March 25, 1895, and the appeal thereafter dismissed for want of jurisdiction (15 Sup. Ct. 722), and a mandate to that effect was duly issued, but that it was not filed, nor any entry of final judgment made, in the circuit court. Petitioner further averred that on May 28, 1895, the governor issued another death warrant to the sheriff of Camden county, directing the execution of the death sentence on the 27th of June following; that on June 5, 1895, a petition was presented to the supreme court of New Jersey for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the detention of Lambert, and that the same was granted, and made returnable on June 10th, and after hearing argument, the court held that Lambert was lawfully in custody; that subsequently application was made to the chancellor of the state for a writ of error to remove the last-mentioned judgment to the court of errors and appeals, which was refused.
Petitioner charged that under section 766 of the Revised Statutes any proceedings to carry out the judgment against him by or under the authority of the state of New Jersey before final judgment was entered in the circuit court were null and void, and that, as such judgment had not been entered, the sheriff restrained him of his liberty for the purpose of carrying the death warrant into execution in violation of that statute of the United States; that the governor had no pre-rogative, right, or authority, under or by virtue of the laws of New Jersey, to grant the reprieve or issue the death war- rant; and that the second death warrant was in the nature of a new sentence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. Collier
...of their client," they should not "interfer[e]" with "the administration of justice ... on mere pretexts." Lambert v. Barrett , 159 U.S. 660, 662, 16 S.Ct. 135, 40 L.Ed. 296 (1895).Prisoners engage in abusive litigation in several different ways. For instance, some prisoners hold off bringi......
-
Barefoot v. Estelle
...of their client, but the administration of justice ought not to be interfered with on mere pretexts." Lambert v. Barrett, 159 U.S. 660, 662, 16 S.Ct. 135, 40 L.Ed. 296 (1895). Furthermore, unlike a term of years, a death sentence cannot begin to be carried out by the State while substantial......
-
Gardner v. Norris
...it also is true that "the administration of justice ought not to be interfered with on mere pretexts." Lambert v. Barrett, 159 U.S. 660, 662, 16 S.Ct. 135, 135, 40 L.Ed. 296 (1895) (quoted in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 888, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3392, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)). This court f......
-
Commonwealth v. Millen
... ... August 29, 1842. The defendants rely on United States v ... Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 27 S.Ct. 165, 51 L.Ed. 319,8 ... Ann.Cas. 265; Lambert v. Barrett, 159 U.S. 660, 16 ... S.Ct. 135, 40 L.Ed. 296; In re Shibuya Jugiro, 140 ... U.S. 291, 11 S.Ct. 770, 35 L.Ed. 510; Marsino v ... ...
-
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
...wait" process has no champions, only critics. 66 S. CAL. L. REV. 2331, 2365-67 (1993) (footnotes omitted). (105.) See Lambert v. Barrett, 159 U.S. 660, 662 (1895) ("It is natural that counsel for the condemned in a capital case should lay hold of every ground which, in their judgment, might......