Starr v. United States
Decision Date | 04 January 1897 |
Docket Number | No. 389,389 |
Citation | 164 U.S. 627,17 S.Ct. 223,41 L.Ed. 577 |
Parties | STARR v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A. H. Garland, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.
On a former trial for the crime of murder, the plaintiff in error was found guilty and sentenced, and the conviction was by this court reversed. Starr v. U. S., 153 U. S. 614, 14 Sup. Ct. 919. The case is again here, in consequence of a second conviction, to review which a writ of error was sued out.
In the course of the first trial below the accused objected to the admissibility of a certain warrant. The matter was thus stated in the record:
'Mr. Cravens (of counsel for defendant): We do not deny that.
'The Court: Mr. Stenographer, let the record show that the signature to this paper is admitted by counsel for the defendant to be the signature of Stephen Wheeler.
'The Court (to counsel for defendant): Do you admit his office,—that he is United States commissioner for the Western district of Arkansas?
'The Court: Mr. Stenographer, let the record show that it is admitted by the counsel for the defendant that Stephen Wheeler was a United States commissioner for the Western district of Arkansas at the time of the issuance of this writ, and is now such commissioner, and the signature to this writ is his signature, but that defendant denies the authenticity of the writ because the commissioner's seal is not on it.
'Mr. Cravens (of counsel for defendant): Yes, sir; that is the point we make on it, and, it being admitted by the court, we save an exception to its admission.'
It was therefore apparent that the objection addressed itself solely to the want of a seal, and not only did not question the capacity of the officer by whom the warrant purported to be issued, but, on the contrary, expressly admitted it. Notwithstanding this fact, when the case was previously here, it was contended in argument that the court below erred in admitting the warrant, not only because it was without a seal, but because the officer by whom it was issued was without capacity to have done so. The question of the want of a seal was held to be untenable, but the frivolous attempt to predicate error because of the want of the capacity of the officer, when such authority was admitted on the face of the record, was deemed unworthy of notice, and was therefore ignored. On the second trial the admission of the warrant was again objected to as follows:
We say there is no such officer as that who is authorized to issue such a writ. There are commissioners appointed by the district court who have no authority to issue writs, and commissioners of the court of claims have no such right. The commissioner who has the right to issue such a writ is designated by the statute as 'Commissioner of the Circuit Court,' and the statute says that he shall be designated and called by that name. We submit that the writ is not in due form.'
The overruling of this objection is assigned for error.
Passing consideration of the question whether the objections taken to the admissibility of the warrant on the second trial are not concluded by the decision on the previous writ of error, they are manifestly without merit.
The fact that the officer who issued the warrant affixed to his signature the words 'Commissioner United States Court, Western District of Arkansas,' did not affirmatively imply that he was not a commissioner of the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Arkansas. It is true that section 627 of the Revised Statutes, re-enacting the provisions of early statutes, provides that 'each circuit court may appoint, in different parts of the district for which it is held, so many discreet persons as it may deem necessary, who shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wong Sun v. United States
...160 U.S. 408, 16 S.Ct. 327, 40 L.Ed. 474; Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528; Starr v. United States, 164 U.S. 627, 17 S.Ct. 223, 41 L.Ed. 577; and for the views of two Courts of Appeals see Vick v. United States, 216 F.2d 228, 233 (C.A.5th Cir.) ('One motive i......
-
People v. Cutchall, Docket No. 137791
...327; 40 L.Ed. 474 (1896) ]; Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492; [17 S.Ct. 154; 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896) ]; Starr v. United States, 164 U.S. 627 [17 S.Ct. 223; 41 L.Ed. 577 (1897) ]; and for the views of two Courts of Appeals see Vick v. United States, 216 F.2d 228, 233 [ (CA 5, 1954) ]. ("One ......
-
Durham v. Cox
...not as determinative of guilt. Cf. Bird v. United States, 187 U.S. 118, 23 S.Ct. 42, 47 L.Ed. 100 (1902); Starr v. United States, 164 U.S. 627, 17 S.Ct. 223, 41 L.Ed. 577 (1897). This court finds no indication in that context of fundamental unfairness in permitting the facts surrounding Dur......
-
Bailey v. United States
...took place. 29 Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 483-484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Starr v. United States, 164 U.S. 627, 631-632, 17 S.Ct. 223, 41 L.Ed. 577 (1897); Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 498-499, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896); Alberty v. United States, ......