People ex rel. Sammons v. Snow
| Citation | 173 N.E. 8,340 Ill. 464 |
| Decision Date | 16 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 20547.,20547. |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. SAMMONS v. SNOW, Bailiff, et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Original petition for habeas corpus by the People, on the relation of James Fur Sammons, against Bernard W. Snow, Bailiff of the Municipal Court of the City of Chicago, and another, for purpose of being admitted to bail.
Petitioner ordered to be admitted to bail.
Everett Jennings and W. W. Smith, both of Chicago, for petitioner.
John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago (Q. J. Chott and Harry S. Ditchburne, both of Chicago, of counsel), for respondents.
On October 8 a petition was presented on behalf of James Fur Sammons for a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of being admitted to bail in a reasonable amount to be fixed by the court, upon a charge of vagrancy, under which he is confined in the county jail in the custody of the respondents, Bernard W. Snow, who is the bailiff of the municipal court of Chicago, and John E. Traeger, who is the sheriff of Cook county. An information was filed in the municipal court of Chicago, upon which a warrant was issued on October 2 charging the petitioner with the crime of vagrancy and indorsed, ‘Bail $10,000.’ The defendant appeared in court in person and by attorneys for the purpose of giving bond before one of the judges of the municipal court, and upon the motion of the state's attorney the judge increased the amount of bail upon the charge of vagrancy to $50,000. The writ of habeas corpus was issued and a return to the writ has been made by the respondents; Bernard W. Snow, the bailiff of the municipal court, saying that he has not the custody of the body of the petitioner and therefore cannot produce his body in court as commanded by the writ, and the sheriff, John E. Traeger, showing that he has the custody of the petitioner under written authority issued out of the municipal court of Chicago, a copy of which he attaches to his return. The authority so shown is a mittimus issued out of the municipal court on October 2, 1930, committing the petitioner to the common jail of Cook county, to be kept until the final judgment of the court or until he shall give bail as required by the court, and showing the amount of bail required to be $50,000. The petitioner has entered a motion that the court fix the bail to be given by him on the charge of vagrancy in a reasonable sum, and the petitioner and the respondents have united in a motion to submit the cause upon the petition, the return, and the suggestions of counsel for the respective parties which have been filed.
The facts which have been stated appear from the petition, the returns to the writ, and the suggestions which have been filed by the parties. The maximum penalty for the crime with which the petitioner is charged is imprisonment at hard labor upon the streets or highways, or in the jail, calaboose, or other buildings used for penal purposes, or the house of correction, for a term of not less than ten days and not exceeding six months, or a fine of not less than $20 nor more than $100 and costs of suit. On that charge he is now in the custody of the sheriff.
[1] All persons charged with crime have a right to be admitted to bail before conviction except for capital offenses where the proof is evident or the presumption great. This right is guaranteed by the bill of rights of the constitution of this State, and all courts are bound to give persons accused of crime the benefit of that right as declared in section 7 of article 2, providing, ‘all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, where the proof is evident or the presumption great.’ The object of bail is to make certain the defendant's appearance in court to abide the judgment of the court. Bail is not allowed or refused on account of the presumed guilt or innocence of the person accused, though the existence of a doubt as to the accused's guilt and the probability of his appearing for trial are questions which must be considered in determining the amount of the bail to be required. It is also proper to take into consideration on that question the character of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Field
...v. Butterfield, 6 Cir., 187 F. 2d 802, 804; Williamson v. United States, 2 Cir., 184 F.2d 280; People of the State of Ill. ex rel. Sammons v. Snow, 340 Ill. 464, 173 N.E. 8, 72 A.L.R. 798, with annotation at page 3 The element of choice is stressed, for example, in cases such as People v. R......
-
United States v. Spector
...of Gen.Sess. 1820, 1 Wheeler Cr.Cas. 434, 437; United States v. Averett, D.C.W.D.Va.1928, 26 F. 2d 676; People ex rel. Sammons v. Snow, 1930, 340 Ill. 464, 173 N.E. 8, 72 A.L.R. 798; contra: United States ex rel. Rubinstein v. Mulcahy, 2 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d The third criterion specified in......
-
State v. Anderson
...conditions of release as a means of ensuring that a defendant remains detained pending trial. For example, in People ex rel. Sammons v. Snow, 340 Ill. 464, 173 N.E. 8 (1930), the petitioner was charged with vagrancy but had a history of convictions for violent offenses, as well as pending i......
-
United States v. Schneiderman, 21888
... ... page 658, No. 15,495, 3 Wash.C.C. 224; People v. Goodwin, N.Y.Ct. of Gen.Sess. 1820, 1 Wheeler Crim. 434, 437; United ates v. Averett, D.C.W.D.Va. 1928, 26 F.2d 676; People ex rel. Sammons v. Snow, 1930, 340 Ill. 464, 173 N.E. 8, 72 A.L.R. 798; contra: ... ...