Reynolds v. United States
Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
Citation | 25 L.Ed. 244,98 U.S. 145 |
Parties | REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah.
This is an indictment found in the District Court for the third judicial district of the Territory of Utah, charging George Reynolds with bigamy, in violation of sect. 5352 of the Revised Statutes, which, omitting its exceptions, is as follows:——
'Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.'
The prisoner pleaded in abatement that the indictment was not found by a legal grand jury, because fifteen persons, and no more, were impanelled and sworn to serve as a grand jury at the term of the court during which the indictment was found, whereas sect. 808 of the Revised Statutes of the United States enacts that every grand jury impanelled before any District or Circuit Court shall consist of not less than sixteen persons.
An act of the legislature of Utah of Feb. 18, 1870, provides that the court shall impanel fifteen men to serve as a grand jury. Compiled Laws of Utah, ed. of 1876, p. 357, sect. 4.
The court overruled the plea, on the ground that the territorial enactment governed.
The prisoner then pleaded not guilty. Several jurors were examined on their voire dire by the district attorney. Among them was Eli Ransohoff, who, in answer to the question, 'Have you formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner at the bar?' said, 'I have expressed an opinion by reading the papers with the reports of the trial.'
Q. 'Would that opinion influence your verdict in hearing the evidence?'
A. 'I don't think it would.'
By the defendant: 'You stated that you had formed some opinion by reading the reports of the previous trial?'
A. 'Yes.'
Q. 'Is that an impression which still remains upon your mind?'- A. 'No; I don't think it does: I only glanced over it, as everybody else does.'
Q. 'Do you think you could try the case wholly uninfluenced by any thing?'
A. 'Yes.'
Charles Read, called as a juror, was asked by the district attorney, 'Have you formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of this charge?'
A. 'I believe I have formed an opinion.'
By the court: 'Have you formed and expressed an opinion?'
A. 'No, sir; I believe not.'
Q. 'You say you have formed an opinion?'
A. 'I have.'
Q. 'Is that based upon evidence?'
A. 'Nothing produced in court.'
Q. 'Would that opinion influence your verdict?'
A. 'I don't think it would.'
By defendant: 'I understood you to say that you had formed an opinion, but not expressed it.'
A. 'I don't know that I have expressed an opinion: I have formed one.'
Q. 'Do you now entertain that opinion?'
A. 'I do.'
The defendant challenged each of these jurors for cause. The court overruled the challenge, and permitted them to be sworn. The defendant excepted.
The court also, when Homer Brown was called as a juror, allowed the district attorney to ask him the following questions: Q. 'Are you living in polygamy?' A. 'I would rather not answer that.' The court instructed the witness that he must answer the question, unless it would criminate him. By the district attorney: 'You understand the conditions upon which you refuse?' A. 'Yes, sir.'—Q. 'Have you such an opinion that you could not find a verdict for the commission of that crime?' A. Whereupon the United States challenged the said Brown for favor, which challenge was sustained by the court, and the defendant excepted.
John W. Snell, also a juror, was asked by the district attorney on voire dire: Q. 'Are you living in polygamy?' A. 'I decline to answer that question.'—Q. 'On what ground?' A. 'It might criminate myself; but I am only a fornicator.' Whereupon Snell was challenged by the United States for cause, which challenge was sustained, and the defendant excepted.
After the trial commenced, the district attorney, after proving that the defendant had been married on a certain day to Mary Ann Tuddenham, offered to prove his subsequent marriage to one Amelia Jane Schofield during the lifetime of said Mary. He thereupon called one Pratt, the deputy marshal, and showed him a subpoena for witnesses in this case, and among other names thereon was the name of Mary Jane Schobold, but no such name as Amelia Jane Schofield. He testified that this subpoena was placed in his hands to be served.
Q. 'Did you see Mr. Reynolds when you went to see Miss Schofield?'
A. 'Yes, sir.'
Q. 'Who did you inquire for?'
A.
Q. 'State the reply.'
A. 'He said she was not at home.'
Q. 'Did he say any thing further.'
A. 'I asked him then where I could find her. I said, 'Where is she? And he said, 'You will have to find out."
Q. 'Did he know you to be a deputy marshal?'
A. 'Yes, sir.'
Q. 'Did you tell him what your business was as deputy marshal?'
A. 'I don't remember now: I don't think I did.'
Q. 'What else did he say?'- A. 'He said, just as I was leaving, as I understood it, that she did not appear in this case.'
The court then ordered a subpoena to issue for Amelia Jane Schofield, returnable instanter.
Upon the following day, at ten o'clock A.M., the said subpoena for the said witness having issued about nine o'clock P.M. of the day before, the said Arthur Pratt was again called upon, and testified as follows:——
Q. (By district attorney.) 'State whether you are the officer that had subpoena in your hands.' (Exhibiting subpoena last issued, as above set forth.)
A. 'Yes, sir.'
Q. 'State to the court what efforts you have made to serve it.'
A.
Q. 'Do you know any thing about her home,—where she resides?'
A. 'I know where I found her before.'
Q. 'Where?'
A. 'At the same place.'
Q. 'You are the deputy marshal that executed the process of the court?'
A. 'Yes, sir.'
Q. 'Repeat what Mr. Reynolds said to you when you went with the former subpoena introduced last evening.'
A. - Q. 'Can't you state that more particularly?'
A. 'I can't give you the exact words, but I can say that was the purport of them.'
Q. 'Give the words as nearly as you can.'
A. 'Just as I said, I think those were his words.'
The district attorney then offered to prove what Amelia Jane Schofield had testified to on a trial of another indictment charging the prisoner with bigamy in marrying her; to which the prisoner objected, on the ground that a sufficient foundation had not been laid for the introduction of the evidence.
A. S. Patterson, having been sworn, read, and other witnesses stated, said Amelia's testimony on the former trial, tending to show her marriage with the defendant. The defendant excepted to the admission of the evidence.
The court, in summing up to the jury, declined to instruct them, as requested by the prisoner, that if they found that he had married in pursuance of and conformity with what he believed at the time to be a religious duty, their verdict should be 'not guilty,' but instructed them that if he, under the influence of a religious belief that it was right, had 'deliberately married a second time, having a first wife living, the want of consciousness of evil intent—the want of understanding on his part that he was committing crime—did not excuse him, but the law inexorably, in such cases, implies criminal intent.'
The court also said:
To the refusal of the court to charge as requested, and to the charge as given, the prisoner excepted. The jury found him guilty, as charged in the indictment; and the judgment that he be imprisoned at hard labor for a term of two years, and pay a fine of $500, rendered by the District Court, having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory, he sued out this writ of error.
The assignments of error are set out in the opinion of the court.
Mr. George W. Biddle and Mr. Ben Sheeks for the plaintiff in error.
First, The jury was improperly drawn. Two of the jurors were challenged for cause by the defendant below, because they admitted that they had formed, and still entertained, an opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Bd. of Education
...of religious beliefs (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643), prohibit polygamy (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244), or require the observance of child labor laws (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645). The issue, ......
-
Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.
...Applying these criteria, the Supreme Court has allowed some religious conduct to be banned entirely (see, e.g., Reynolds v. United States (1878) 98 U.S. 145, 166, 25 L.Ed. 244 [upholding law against polygamy]; Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) 321 U.S. 158, 170-171, 64 S.Ct. 438, 444, 88 L.Ed.......
-
First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County
...activity has long been recognized as subject to some limitation if that exercise is deemed detrimental to society. In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244, the plaintiff was a church member and a conscientious practitioner of its established doctrine which encouraged polygam......
-
People v. Kerley
...this case of Kerley's intent is quite compelling. In the Supreme Court's first application of the doctrine, Reynolds v. United States (1879) 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244 ( Reynolds ), the defendant was charged with bigamy. At his first trial, the defendant's second wife, Mary Jane Schofield, t......
-
Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington's Originalism: Historical Arguments Showing Child Abuse Victims' Statements to Physicians Are Nontestimonial and Admissible as an Exception to the Confrontation Clause - Tom Harbison
...states that it accepts the use of the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to confrontation by the Court in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62. Reynolds is an example where the prior statements were been made under oath. In Motes v. United States, the Cour......
-
Hearsay
...“testimonial.” Instead, it cited Crawford ’s acceptance of forfeiture by wrong doing and quoted a portion of Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) for support: The Constitution gives the accused the right to a trial at which he should be confronted with the witnesses against him; bu......
-
The First Amendment: churches seeking sanctuary for the sins of the fathers.
...Hutchins ed., 1952). (8.) See Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 231 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring). (9.) U.S. CONT. amend. I. (10.) 98 U.S. 145 (11.) Id. at 166. (12.) Id. at 166-67. (13.) Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04 (1940); see Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872,......
-
The Establishment Clause: The Lemon and Marsh Conflict, Where Lund and Bormuth Leave Us, and the Constitutionality of Exclusive, Legislator-Led Prayer.
...religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" See id. at 16 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (29.) See McConnell, supra note 27, at 2108 (describing Virginia Assessment Controversy of 1784-1786). Judge McConnell states that the d......
-
Release number 201310047 of 2013-03-08
...to mean holding out thatthe parties are married with cohabitation and intent to be rmartied by either party In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1876), the Supreme Court held itis a law in the United States that plural marriage shall not be allowed and indicated that such law is withi......
-
Release number 201323025 of 2013-06-07
...events cannot be ‘exempt under 501(c)(3) since it violates the common understanding ofa charitable trust, In Reyrolds v, United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), the Supreme Court held itis a law in the territories of te United States that plural marriage shall not be allowed and indicated that s......
-
Release number 201325015 of 2013-06-21
...to mean holding out thatthe parties are married with cohabitation and intent to be married by elther party. In Reynolds v, United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), the Supreme Court held it is law in the United States that plural marriage shall not be allowed and indicated that such law is within......
-
Release number 200947055 of 2009-11-20
...other types of criminal prosecution. Generally, ignorance of criminal laws is not a defense to prosecution. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 167 (1879). However, in 1933 the Supreme Court set criminal tax laws apart from other criminal statutes by providing that ignorance of the law ......