Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

U. S., 349, and to such a hearing as the terms and rules of the Court permit, Beavers vs. Haubert, 198 U. S., 86, and to such an explanation of the offense charged as to afford the defendant ample protection from any subsequent prosecution and to enable him to make his defense in the present one, United States vs. Cruickshank, 92 U. S., 557; United States vs. Martindale, 146 Federal, 291; United States vs. Green, 136 Federal, 641; Fitzpartick vs. United States, 178 U. S., 309; Terry vs. United States, 120 Federal, 486; Milby vs. United States, 149 Federal, 641; Bartlett vs. United States, 106 Federal, 885. It is not necessary, however, to furnish a copy of the indictment to the defendant, United States vs. Vanduzee, 140 U. S., 173; United States vs. Jones, 193 U. S., 530; Balliet vs. United States, 129 Federal, 689, unless the prosecution is for treason or other capital offense, in which event Section 1033 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides the procedure, which includes a copy of the indictment for the defendant. The only exceptions to the guarantee that the defendant shall be confronted with the witness against him are the introduction of dying declarations and the introduction of the testimony of a deceased witness who was sworn upon a former trial, and the testimony taken in stenographic form, such testimony to be supported by the oath of the stenographer, Kirby vs. United States, 174 U. S. 61; West vs. Louisiana, 142 Federal, 4; Flynn vs. People, 222 Illinois, 309; Robertson vs. Baldwin, 165 U. S., 281; Mattox vs. United States, 156 U. S., 240; Motes vs. United States, 178 U. S., 471.

Section 878 of the Revised Statutes of the United States authorizes the issuing of process for indigent defendants when such defendants make affidavit in accordance therewith, but a rule of the Court limiting such witnesses to four is not unreasonable.

§ 9. It is well for the attorney whose practice has been largely confined to the state courts to ever bear in mind that the rules and forms of practice and methods of pleading that are adopted by Federal Statute for procedure in the Federal Courts, do not apply to any extent in the trial of Federal criminal law. It is entirely immaterial what the state statutes provide with reference to procedure in criminal cases, so far as the Federal Courts are concerned. The Federal statutes alone control in criminal matters.

In

Logan vs. United States, 144 U. S., 301, the Supreme Court held that even Section 858 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which, in its concluding paragraph, seems to program the line of competency for witnesses in the Courts of the United States did not relate to criminal trials or witnesses in criminal cases. The Court in that case said:

"For the reasons above stated, the provisions of Section 858 of the Revised Statutes, that 'the laws of the state in which the court is held shall be the rules of decision as to competency of witnesses in the Courts of the United States, in trials at common law and in equity and admiralty,' has no application to criminal trials; and, therefore, the competency of witnesses in criminal trials in the Courts of the United States ...... is not governed by a statute of the state.

Criminal cases in the Federal courts are governed and controlled by Federal statutes and Federal decisions, and state statutes and state decisions are inapplicable. Jones vs. United States, 162 Fed., 419; United States vs. Reid, 12 Howard, 363; Starr vs. United States, 153 U. S., 625; Jones vs. United States, 137 U. S., 211; Simmons vs. United States, 142 U. S., 148; Lang vs. United States, 133 Fed., 204; U. S. vs. Davis, 103 Fed., 457; U. S. vs. Hall, 53 Fed., 353; U. S. vs. Stone, 8 Fed., 239.

CHAPTER II.

GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PRACTICE.

§ 10. Judicial Code and the Courts.

10a. Trial-public.

11. U. S. Commissioners.

11a. Contempts.

11b. Contempt Defined.

11c. Contempt pendente lite.

12.

Prosecution Begun by Indictment.

13. Grand Jury and Indictment.

13a. Grand Jury and Indictment-Continued.

13b. Copy of the Indictment.

13c. Evidence before Grand Jury.

13d. Motion to Quash Indictment or Other Dilatory Plea. 13e. Information.

14. Preliminary Proceedings.

14a. Warrant to Issue-When.

14b. Question of Indictment on Removal.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

21. Admissibility of Documentary Evidence Secured Illegally. 21a. Method for Recovery of Illegally Secured Evidence.

21b. Production of Documents.

22. Comments or Improper Argument of District Attorney.

22a. Procedure When Improper Argument or Remarks are Made.

23. Prosecuting Officer in Grand Jury Room; Limits of his Expression. 24. Jury-Right of-Waiver-Necessity for Full Number--Illegal to Try with Eleven.

24a. Comments by the Court.

25. Care of Jury-Moral Weight of Verdict; Legal Weight of Verdict; Newspapers with Jury-Attempts to Influence Verdict.

25a. Setting Aside Verdict.

26. Evidence of Good Character-Charge on Presumption Thereof.

§ 26a. Good Character Becomes a Fact.

26b. Charge on, Refused When.

26c. Proof of Other Offense.

27. Instructions of the Court, whether Written or Oral, Special Instructions.

27a. Exception to Charge after Jury Retired.

28. Opinion of Court-How Guarded.

28a. The Court not Mere Presiding Officer.

29.

Court Cannot Comment on Lack of Evidence-Presumption of
Good Character.

30. Further Limitations on Court.

31. Verdict as to Part of Counts.

32. Sentence and Correction Thereof. Single Sentence, What Is.

32a.

33.

34.

No Authority to Suspend Sentence.

Correction of Sentence; Control of Court over Sentence after Term; New Trial; Motion for, When to be Made; May be Made in Court of Appeals; Null and Void Criminal Judgment; Whether May be Corrected, and How.

34a. Sentence not Absolutely Void; Resentencing.

35.

Remission of Penalty on Forfeited Recognizance.

35a. Fine Abated by Death.

36. Bail After Affirmance.

36a. Bail Matter of Discretion and Matter of Right, When. 36b. Voluntary Giving of Bond no Defense to Surety Liability.

37. Severance-Separate Trials-Discretion of Court.

38. Habeas Corpus-Conclusions of Law Therein Instead of Statement of Facts.

38a. Habeas Corpus not to be used as Writ of Error.

39. Immunity under Commerce Act by Reason of Testimony.

39a. Immunity Governs Testimony by the Commissioner of Corporations; As Applied to the Fifth Amendment; As Applied to Section 860; Duces Tecum Basis of.

40. Improper Person in Grand Jury Room.

40a. Hearsay Testimony Before Grand Jury-Stenographer Before Grand Jury.

41. Private Prosecutor Unknown in Federal Courts.

42. Proof of Witness's Former Conviction.

10. Judicial Code and the Counts.-Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides in substance that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in a Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish. Passing by the courts of the District of Columbia and the territorial courts there is but one federal court in which indictments and informations may be lodged and tried, namely, the district courts. Circuit courts were abolished by the Act of March 3, 1911, which Act enlarged the juris

diction of the district courts, re-enacted the provisions relating to the Supreme Court, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and Court of Claims, and embraced the enactments establishing the Commerce Court and the Court of Customs Appeals. This act was called the Judicial Code, and went into effect January 1, 1912. The jurisdiction conferred on the district courts up to January 1, 1912, is enumerated in Section 563 of the 1878 statutes and the jurisdiction conferred on the district courts by the new Judicial Code is shown in Section 24 of that Code.

§ 10a. Trial Public. The Constitution does not necessarily mean the "public trial" means the presence of spectators. When spectators are excluded defendant should allege and show injury to set aside verdict. Reagan vs. U. S., 202 Fed. 488.

11. United States Commissioners. The present United States Commissioners, that correspond in a general way to magistrates, justices of the peace, and other state examining officers, were, under the old law, called Commissioners of the Circuit Courts; but by the Act of May, 1896, all Circuit Court Commissioners were abolished, and thereafter it became the duty of the District Court of each judicial district in the United States to appoint such number of persons as it might deem necessary to be known as United States Commissioners. This Act of May, 1896, was an amendment to the old Section 627 of the Revised Statutes. The Criminal Code of 1910 does not change the Act of 1896. A United States Commissioner, however, is not a Court. In the case of in re Sing Tuck, 126 Federal, 397, the Court held a United States Commissioner to be neither a court nor a judge, nor vested by law with any part of the judicial power of the United States. A United States Commissioner is an inferior officer of a court, appointed by the court under authority of Congress, with defined and circumscribed powers. United States vs. Case, 8 Blatchf., 250; United States vs. Schumaan, 2 Abb. U. S. 523; in re Kaine, 14 Howard, 103; United States vs. Clark, 1 Gall., 497. See also in re Grin, 112 Federal, 795; Rice vs. Ames, 180 U. S., 371; Wright vs. Henkel, 190 U. S., 62; Beavers vs. Henkel, 194 U. S., 87, as to other powers of United States Commissioners, under proper appointment from the Court.

« AnteriorContinuar »