Todd v. United States, No. 822
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BREWER |
| Citation | 39 L.Ed. 982,158 U.S. 278,15 S.Ct. 889 |
| Parties | TODD et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1895 |
| Docket Number | No. 822 |
v.
UNITED STATES.
Todd and others were indicted under section 5406 of the Revised Statutes, reading as follows:
'If two or more persons in any state or territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat,a ny party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truth-fully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property, on account of his having so attended or testified, * * * each of such persons shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, not less than six months nor more than six years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'
The indictment stated:
'That heretofore,' etc., 'J. W. Todd, alias Watson Todd, George W. Kelley [etc., naming plaintiffs in error and others], whose Christian names and surnames, respectively, are to this grand jury otherwise unknown, unlawfully, corruptly, forcibly, and feloniously did combine, conspire, and confederate together, by force and intimidation and threats, to injure Wiley Pruett and William Pruett, who had theretofore been witnesses and testified against Joe Arnold, Milton Farmer, and George Kelley upon a charge of endeavoring to influence, intimidate, and impede witnesses in a court of the United States, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, tried preliminarily by and before Robert Charlson, acting as a commissioner of the circuit court of the United States for said district, in
Page 279
their person and property on account of the said witnesses above named having testified in said cause in the said court as aforesaid, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, and to effect the object thereof, the said defendants, and each of them, did assault, beat, bruise, and wound with weapons the said Wiley Pruett and William Pruett, contrary,' etc.
A demurrer to the indictment was interposed and overruled, and, a nolle prosequi having been entered as to certain defendants, Todd, Roberts, and Mitchell, and 10 others, were tried and convicted, and, a motion in arrest of judgment having been made and denied, were each sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for four years, and payment of $500 and costs.
Thereupon they sued out a writ of error from this court.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting.
John C. Fay, for plaintiffs in error.
Sol. Gen. Conrad and Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 279-282 intentionally omitted]
Page 282
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
After this case had been submitted to us on certain alleged errors, we became impressed with the fact that a more serious question existed than any that had been discussed, and that is whether a preliminary examination before a commissioner is a proceeding 'in any court of the United States,' within the meaning of section 5406. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Jones, No. 11–3719.
...not clearly defined.”); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 516 (1921); Todd v. United States, 158 U.S. 278, 282, 15 S.Ct. 889, 39 L.Ed. 982 (1895) (“[B]efore a man can be punished, his case must be plainly and unmistakably within the statute.” (em......
-
Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Bahan, 2021-0224
...State ex rel. Cleveland Mun. Court v. Cleveland City Council 34 Ohio St.2d 120, 121, 296 N.E.2d 544 (1973), quoting Todd v. United States, 158 U.S. 278, 284, 15 S.Ct. 889, 39 L.Ed. 982 (1895). As Gov.Bar R. IV(2) recognizes, there is a difference between a court and "the temporary incumbent......
-
Audett v. United States, No. 15929.
...(6). 13 28 U.S.C. § 604(a) (9). 14 28 U.S.C. § 604(a) (6). 15 28 U.S.C. § 604(a) (9). 16 28 U.S.C. § 634. 17 Todd v. United States, 1895, 158 U.S. 278, 282, 15 S.Ct. 889, 39 L.Ed. 982; Grin v. Shine, 1902, 187 U.S. 181, 187, 23 S.Ct. 98, 47 L.Ed. 130; Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States,......
-
In re Oliver, No. 215
...458, 466—468, 17 N.W.2d 251, 254 255; Kloka v. Brake State Treasurer, 318 Mich. 87, 90, 27 N.W.2d 507, 508; cf. Todd v. United States, 158 U.S. 278, 284, 15 S.Ct. 889, 891, 39 L.Ed. 982; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 481, 489, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 1134, 1137, 38 L.Ed. 1......
-
United States v. Jones, No. 11–3719.
...not clearly defined.”); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 516 (1921); Todd v. United States, 158 U.S. 278, 282, 15 S.Ct. 889, 39 L.Ed. 982 (1895) (“[B]efore a man can be punished, his case must be plainly and unmistakably within the statute.” (em......
-
Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Bahan, 2021-0224
...State ex rel. Cleveland Mun. Court v. Cleveland City Council 34 Ohio St.2d 120, 121, 296 N.E.2d 544 (1973), quoting Todd v. United States, 158 U.S. 278, 284, 15 S.Ct. 889, 39 L.Ed. 982 (1895). As Gov.Bar R. IV(2) recognizes, there is a difference between a court and "the temporary incumbent......
-
Audett v. United States, No. 15929.
...(6). 13 28 U.S.C. § 604(a) (9). 14 28 U.S.C. § 604(a) (6). 15 28 U.S.C. § 604(a) (9). 16 28 U.S.C. § 634. 17 Todd v. United States, 1895, 158 U.S. 278, 282, 15 S.Ct. 889, 39 L.Ed. 982; Grin v. Shine, 1902, 187 U.S. 181, 187, 23 S.Ct. 98, 47 L.Ed. 130; Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States,......
-
In re Oliver, No. 215
...458, 466—468, 17 N.W.2d 251, 254 255; Kloka v. Brake State Treasurer, 318 Mich. 87, 90, 27 N.W.2d 507, 508; cf. Todd v. United States, 158 U.S. 278, 284, 15 S.Ct. 889, 891, 39 L.Ed. 982; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 481, 489, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 1134, 1137, 38 L.Ed. 1......