United States v. George Wilson

Decision Date01 January 1833
Citation8 L.Ed. 640,32 U.S. 150,7 Pet. 150
PartiesUNITED STATES v. GEORGE WILSON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

CERTIFICATE of Division from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

At the April sessions 1830, of that court, six indictments were presented to, and found by, the grand jury against James Porter and George Wilson; one for obstructing the mail of the United States from Philadelphia to Kimberton, on the 26th day of November 1829; one for obstructing the mail from Philadelphia to Reading, on the 6th day of December 1829; one for the robbery of the Kimberton mail, and putting the life of the carrier in jeopardy, on the same day in November 1829; one for robbery of the Reading mail, and putting the life of the carrier in jeopardy, on the same 6th day of December 1829; one for robbery of the Kimberton mail, also on the 26th of November 1829; and one for robbery of the Reading mail, also on the 6th of December 1829. At the same sessions, two other indictments were presented to the grand jury, against the same defendants, in which they were severally charged with robbery of the Reading and Kimberton mail, and wounding the carrier, which were returned to the court as 'true bills, except as to wounding the carrier.' Upon the indictment for robbery of the Kimberton mail, and putting the life of the carrier in jeopardy, and also in the two last-mentioned indictments, a nolle prosequi was afterwards entered by the district-attorney of the United States. On the 26th day of April 1830, the defendants, James Porter and George Wilson, pleaded not guilty to the several bills upon which they were arrainged; and on the 1st of May, a verdict of guilty was rendered against them, upon the indictment for robbery of the Reading mail, and putting the life of the carrier in jeopardy.5 The circuit court, on the 27th of May 1830, sentenced the defendants to suffer death, on the 2d July following, and James Porter was executed in pursuance of this sentence.

Upon the 27th of May 1830, George Wilson withdrew the pleas of not guilty to all the indictments against him, except those on which a nolle prosequi was afterwards entered, and pleaded guilty to the same.

The indictment for robbery of the Reading mail, and putting the life of the driver in jeopardy, upon which James Porter and George Wilson were tried and convicted, was in the following terms:

'Eastern district of Pennsylvania, to wit: The grand inquest of the United States of America, inquiring for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, upon their oaths and affirmations, respectively, do present, that James Porter, otherwise called James May, late of the eastern district aforesaid, yeoman, and George Wilson, late of the eastern district aforesaid, yeoman on the 6th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1829, at the eastern district aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this court, with force and arms, in and upon one Samuel McCrea, in the peace of God and of the United States of America then and there being, and then and there being a carrier of the mail of the United States, and then and there intrusted therewith, and then and there proceeding with the said mail, from the city of Philadelphia to the borough of Reading, feloniously did make an assault, and him the said Samuel McCrea in bodily fear and danger, then and there, feloniously did put, and the said mail of the United States from him the said Samuel McCrea, then and there, feloniously, violently and against his will, did steal, take and carry away, contrary to the form of the act of congress in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.

'And the inquest aforesaid, upon their oaths and affirmations aforesaid, do further present, that the said James Porter, otherwise called James May, and the said George Wilson, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at the eastern district aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this court, with force and arms, in and upon the said Samuel McCrea, then and there being a carrier of the mail of the United States, and then and there intrusted therewith, feloniously did make an assault, and him, the said carrier of the said mail, then and there, feloniously, violently and against his will, did rob, contrary to the form of the act of congress in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.'

On the 14th of June 1830, the president of the United States granted the following pardon to George Wilson:

'Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, to all who shall see these presents, greeting: Whereas a certain George Wilson has been convicted before the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, of the crime of robbing the mail of the United States, and has been sentenced by the said court to suffer the penalty of death, on the 2d day of July next; and whereas, the said George Wilson has been recommended as a fit subject for the exercise of executive clemency, by a numerous and respectable body of petitioners, praying for him a remission of the sentence of death, inasmuch as, in such a case, sentence of imprisonment for twenty years may yet be pronounced against him on the indictments to which he has pleaded guilty in the circuit court of the United States for the said district, and a still more severe imprisonment may be awarded him for the same acts, in the criminal courts of Pennsylvania: Now, therefore, I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America, in consideration of the premises, divers other good and sufficient reasons me thereunto moving, have pardoned, and do hereby pardon, the said George Wilson the crime for which he has been sentenced to suffer death, remitting the penalty aforesaid, with this express stipulation, that this pardon shall not extend to any judgment which may be had or obtained against him, in any other case or cases now pending before said court for other offences wherewith he may stand charged.

'In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed to these presents. Given at the city of Washington this 14th day of June, A. D. 1830, and of the independence of the United States the fifty-fourth.

[L. S.] ANDREW JACKSON.'

'By the President:—M. VAN BUREN, Secretary of state.'

The record, as certified from the circuit court, proceeded to state: 'And now, to wit, this 20th day of October, A. D. 1830, the district-attorney of the United States moves the court for sentence upon the defendant, George Wilson; but the court suggesting the propriety of inquiring as to the effect of a certain pardon, understood to have been granted by the president of the United States to the defendant, since the conviction on this indictment, although alleged to relate to a conviction on another indictment, the case postponed till the 21st day of October 1830. And now, to wit, this 21st day of October 1830, the counsel for the defendant, George Wilson, appear before the court, and on behalf of the said defendant, waive and decline any advantage or protection which might be supposed to arise from the pardon referred to: and thereupon, the following questions or points were argued by the district-attorney of the United States, upon which the opinions of the judges of the said circuit court were opposed: 1. That the pardon referred to (prout the same) is expressly restricted to the sentence of death passed upon the defendant, under another conviction, and as expressly reserves from its operation the conviction now before the court. 2. That the prisoner can, under this conviction, derive no advantage from the pardon, without bringing the same judicially before the court by plea, motion or otherwise.

'And now, to wit, this 21st day of October 1830, the defendant, George Wilson, being in person before the court, was asked by the court, whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced for the crime whereof he stands convicted in this particular case, and whether he wished in any manner to avail himself of the pardon referred to; and the said defendant answered in person, that he had nothing to say, and that he did not wish in any manner to avail himself, in order to avoid sentence in this particular case, of the pardon referred to. And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the points or questions above stated, the same were then and there, at the request of the district-attorney of the United States stated, under the direction of the judges, and ordered by the court to be certified, under the seal of the court, to the supreme court, at their next session thereafter, to be finally decided by the said supreme court. And the court being further of opinion, that other proceedings could not be had in the said case, without prejudice to its merits, did order the same to be continued over to the next sessions of the court.

HENRY BALDWIN.

JOS. HOPKINSON.'

The case was argued for the United States, by Taney, Attorney-General; no counsel appeared for the defendant, George Wilson.

The Attorney-General contended, that the other indictments against the defendant, and the proceedings on them, formed no part of the proceedings or evidence in this case; and they are not offered in evidence, either by the United States or George Wilson. This court could judicially notice, perhaps, that such indictments were upon the records of the circuit court. But whether it was the same Wilson, or the act constituting the offence the same act, and whether it was pardoned, were matters of fact, and not matters of law. Neither one of these facts was pleaded by either of the parties, nor in any form alleged, nor any evidence offered to establish either of them. The question is, can the court, without the allegation of either party, and without evidence offered, decide the facts, that he is the same person; that the act pardoned is the same with the one now...

To continue reading

Request your trial
181 cases
  • Fletcher v. Graham, No. 2005-SC-1009-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • May 18, 2006
    ......Meadows, Richard L. Murgatroyd, Basil W. Turbyfill, Robert W. Wilson, Jr., and any and all persons who have committed, or may be accused of ... United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) . ....         As we learned from President George H.W. Bush's pardons of the Iran-Contra indictees, supra note 3, the ......
  • Moore v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 6, 1925
    ......Justice BRADLEY, speaking for the court in. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746, 6. S.Ct. 524. As was there shown, it ... in their minds. Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and George Mason. were thinking of the individual's inalienable right to. the ... of the power of pardon ( United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150, 7 Pet. 150, 160, 8 L.Ed. 640):. . . "'As. ......
  • Herrera v. Collins
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1993
    ...the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States." Art. II, § 2, cl. 1. In United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150, 160-161, 8 L.Ed. 640 (1833), Chief Justice Marshall expounded on the President's pardon "As this power had been exercised from time immem......
  • Com. v. Cannon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • June 25, 1956
    ...U.S. 79, 89, 35 S.Ct. 267, 269, 59 L.Ed. 476, the Court quoted with approval Chief Justice Marshall's statement in United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150, 160, 8 L.Ed. 640: [386 Pa. 67] "A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • THE LEGALITY OF PRESIDENTIAL SELF-PARDONS.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 44 No. 3, June 2021
    • June 22, 2021
    ...the word the same meaning as prevailed here and in England at the time it found a place in the constitution."); Wilson v. United States, 32 U.S. 150, 160 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.) ("As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our lan......
  • Protecting the innocent in New York: moving beyond changing only their names.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 73 No. 4, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed." United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150, 160 (1833); see also Herrera, 506 U.S. at 412-14 (quoting Wilson, 32 U.S. at 160); Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 380-81 (1866). But see Ohio Adu......
  • Breaking into the pardon power: Congress and the office of the pardon attorney.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 46 No. 4, September - September 2009
    • September 22, 2009
    ...discretion to pardon whomever he sees fit to pardon."). (25.) See Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333,380 (1866): United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150, 160 (1833); see also Peterson, supra note 24, at 1226 ("The clause is often described as an example of an unconfined constitutional grant of auth......
  • ADRIFT IN THE INTERSTICES OF LAW AND JUSTICE: DIVINING RIGHT AND WRONG IN THE SAD, STRANGE CASE OF PEOPLE V. SCHMIDT.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 83 No. 3, March 2020
    • March 22, 2020
    ...clemency authority in federal cases, the Supreme Court long ago described a pardon as "an act of grace." United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150, 160 (1833); see also Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 280-81 (1998) (plurality opinion) ("[T]he heart of executive clemency... is t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT