Affiliations

• United States v. Hamilton

  Supreme Court of the United States · 1795-02-20 · cited 26×

  The case involved a defendant charged with treason who sought bail and a special session of the federal Circuit Court nearer to where the alleged offenses occurred. The court admitted the prisoner to bail, set at $4,000 for the defendant and $2,000 each for two sureties, with the recognizance requiring appearance at the next regular Circuit Court term. Justice Wilson explained that the court had considered but rejected the request for a special session, citing insurmountable procedural barriers under existing statutes. These included conflicts with the timing of the upcoming regular court session, the lack of authority to transfer indictments or pending matters between a special and regular court, and the inability to simultaneously operate two courts or grand juries in the same district for the same offenses.

  criminal lawprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (436 words)

• Armstrong v. Carson

  Supreme Court of the United States · 1794-04-01 · cited 38×

  This case involved an attempt to enforce a record or judgment from the courts of New Jersey in a federal court sitting in Pennsylvania, specifically addressing whether a defensive plea that would be invalid under New Jersey law could be raised. Justice Wilson ruled that the plea was inadmissible, holding that the federal statute implementing the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires the record to have the same effect in the receiving court as it would in the originating court. The court therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff. On the separate issue of damages, the court declined to assess interest itself and instead followed the state-court practice of entering a general judgment, leaving the plaintiff to ascertain the amount at his peril when issuing execution.

  federal powerprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (301 words)

• United States v. Ravara

  Supreme Court of the United States · 1793-04-01 · cited 12×

  The case United States v. Ravara involved an indictment in the Circuit Court against a foreign consul for a criminal offense, raising the question of whether the Supreme Court held exclusive original jurisdiction under the Constitution in matters involving foreign public agents. Justices Wilson and Peters determined that the Constitution permits Congress to vest concurrent jurisdiction in inferior courts established by law, and the Judiciary Act's grant of exclusive cognizance over federal crimes to the Circuit Court supported sustaining the indictment. Justice Iredell dissented, contending that constitutional text and policy considerations required exclusive Supreme Court jurisdiction for such cases. The court rejected the motion to quash, allowing the proceedings to continue in the Circuit Court.

  criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (670 words)