United States v. Jackalow
| Citation | 17 L.Ed. 225,1 Black 484,66 U.S. 484 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. JACKALOW |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1861 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
This was an indictment against John, alias Johnny, alias John Canoe, alias Jackalow, a native of the Loo Choo Islands, for piracy on the high seas, found and tried in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, and came into the Supreme Court on a certificate of the judges that they were divided in opinion.
The jury, in a special verdict, found that the offence charged in the indictment was committed by the prisoner at a certain place described and designated, but did not find whether that place was within the jurisdiction of any State, within any district of the United States, or upon the high seas. Did this verdict authorize the Circuit Court to pronounce judgment of death against the prisoner? That was the question on which the judges divided.
Mr. Bates, Attorney General, and Mr. Keasley, of New Jersey, for the United States.
No counsel appeared for Jackalow.
This case comes before us on a division of opinion of the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of New Jersey.
The first count in the indictment charges that the prisoner, with force and arms, on the high seas, in waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, on board of an American vessel called the 'Spray,' piratically, feloniously, and violently did assault one John F. Leete, the master of the vessel, putting him in bodily fear, and did feloniously, &c., seize, take, and carry away thirty pieces of gold coin, &c., of the goods and effects of the said master, contrary to the form of the statute, &c. The indictment also avers that the district of New Jersey is the district in which the prisoner was found and first apprehended for the offence.
The jury found a special verdict, that the offence charged in the first count was committed by the prisoner on board the 'Spray,' which at the time was lying in the waters adjoining the State of Connecticut, between Norwalk harbor and Westchester county, in the State of New York, at a point five miles eastward of Lyons's Point, (which is the boundary between the States of New York and Connecticut,) and one mile and a half from the Connecticut shore at low-water mark.
The indictment was found under the 3d section of the act of Congress of May 15, 1820, which enacts that if any person shall, upon the high seas, or in any open roadstead, or any haven, basin, or bay, or in any river, &c., commit the crime of robbery in or upon any ship or vessel, or upon any of the ship's company, &c., or the lading thereof, &c., on being convicted before the Circuit Court of the United States for the district into which he shall be brought, or on which he shall be found, shall suffer death.
There is a proviso which declares that nothing in the section shall be construed to deprive any particular State of its jurisdiction over the offence, when committed within the body of a county, or authorize the courts of the United States to try such offenders after conviction or acquittance for the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bink
...referred to, the indictment and trial must be in a district of the State in which the offense was committed." United States v. Jackalow, 1 Black 484, 66 U.S. 484, 17 L.Ed. 225. There is one square holding by the Supreme Court that a district court has no jurisdiction of an indictment for an......
-
U.S. v. Miller
...involve issues of double jeopardy nor bar prosecution in the proper venue. Wilkett, 655 F.2d at 1012. 3 See United States v. Jackalow, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 484, 17 L.Ed. 225 (1861) (special verdict set aside and new trial Absent a waiver, failure to guarantee a fundamental constitutional trial......
-
U.S. v. Perez
...only Supreme Court case addressing the fact versus law distinction with respect to venue dates to 1861. In United States v. Jackalow, 66 U.S. 484, 1 Black 484, 17 L.Ed. 225 (1861), the Supreme Court ruled that for purposes of determining whether venue existed in one district for a piracy co......
-
People v. Gayheart
...fact in the determination of the extent of the jurisdiction of a court, is not a simple question of law," United States v. Jackalow, 66 U.S. 484, 487, 1 Black 484, 17 L.Ed. 225 (1861). While the description of a boundary line between two states is a matter of law for the trial court rather ......
-
Criminal Law--Stateless Vessel Analysis Incorporated into Federal Maritime Drug Trafficking Statute Ignored Bilateral Treaty--United States v. Matos-Luchi.
...jurisdiction not element of criminal offense and consequentially proper to grant matter to judge); cf. United States v. Jackalow, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 484, 486 (1st Cir. 1861)(evincing preponderance standard issue decided by jury); United States v. McFarland, 445 F.3d 29, 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (d......