Pierce v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 January 1896 |
| Docket Number | No. 648,648 |
| Citation | 16 S.Ct. 321,40 L.Ed. 454,160 U.S. 355 |
| Parties | PIERCE et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
George Pierce and John Pierce were convicted of murder, and they bring error. Affirmed.
The plaintiffs in error were indicted for the murder on January 15, 1895, in the Cherokee Nation, in the Indian country, of one William Vandeveer, a white man, and not an Indian. There were two counts in the indictment. The first charged the murder to have been committed with a gun, and the second charged it to have been committed 'with a certain blunt instrument.' The jury found both defendants guilty of murder as charged in the first count, and they were accordingly both sentenced to death.
Submitted on record for plaintiffs in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
This case was submitted upon the brief of the attorney general, and upon the material parts of the record. Defendants did not appear at the hearing.
1. The first error assigned is to the refusal of the court to compel the government to elect upon which count of the indictment it would proceed. The two counts differ from each other only in stating the manner in which the murder was committed. Testimony was introduced upon the trial tending to show that deceased had been shot in the forehead, and also hit on the head with a hammer. The question whether the prosecution should be compelled to elect was a matter purely within the discretion of the court. Pointer v. U. S., 151 U. S. 396, 14 Sup. Ct. 410.
2. As no exceptions were taken to the charge of the court, and but one to the admission of testimony, the bill of exceptions, which was very voluminous, was not printed in full. But the charge of the court and the testimony of the defendants were printed, as well as an abstract of the testimony of a single witness, Andrew Brown, who testified that on Monday evening, January 19th, he saw the two defendants, with another man, close to his place; that they were traveling with a mule team and a covered wagon, with a gray mare and colt following; that before daylight, next morning, he saw the same outfit, except there was no third man with defendants; that he went for his nearest neighbor, a Mr. West, and with him searched the place where the defendants had camped, finding blood all around; that Mr. West took up a blanket, and something like a pint of blood ran out of it; he just dropped it, and said, 'Brown, what kind of blood is that?'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nabb v. United States
...202, 207, 28 L.Ed. 262; Sparf & Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 55, 715, 15 S.Ct. 273, 275, 39 L.Ed. 343; Pierce v. United States, 160 U.S. 355, 16 S.Ct. 321, 40 L.Ed. 454; Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 623, 16 S.Ct. 895, 899, 40 L.Ed. 1090; cf. State ex rel. Bilokumsky v. To......
-
People v. Conte
...see, e.g., Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 621-623, 16 S.Ct. 895, 899-900, 40 L.Ed. 1090 (1896); Pierce v. United States, 160 U.S. 355, 16 S.Ct. 321, 40 L.Ed. 454 (1896), are now governed by constitutional provisions. See, e.g., Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6-9, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1492-1......
-
Hartzell v. United States
...the statements which he made. Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 U. S. 1, 45 S. Ct. 1, 69 L. Ed. 131; Pierce v. United States, 160 U. S. 355, 16 S. Ct. 321, 40 L. Ed. 454. The admissibility of such evidence depends largely upon the circumstances connected with the statements, and the matt......
-
Ogden v. United States
...other grounds, 364 U.S. 631, 81 S.Ct. 858, 5 L.Ed.2d 340. 81 Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a). 82 See Fed.R.Crim.P. 14; Pierce v. United States, 160 U.S. 355, 356, 16 S.Ct. 321, 40 L.Ed. 454 (1896); Steinhardt Bros. & Co. v. United States, 191 F. 798, 799 (2d Cir. 1911); Terry v. United States, 120 F. 48......
-
MISSING THE MISJOINDER MARK: IMPROVING CRIMINAL JOINDER OF OFFENSES IN CAPITAL-SENTENCING JURISDICTIONS.
...[former] 557 (Indictments and presentments; joinder of charges); Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396 (1894); Pierce v. United States, 160 U.S. 355 (1896); United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 673 (1896); Stilson v. United States, 250 U.S. 583, 585-86 (65) FED. R. CRIM. P. 13. (66) Id. (6......