LOVEJOY
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1888-11-05
No. 34
128 U.S. 171 Supreme Court of the United States (1888) Caution
Also reported at: 32 L. Ed. 389 · 9 S. Ct. 57 · 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2206 · SCDB 1888-020
Cited by 60 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In this federal jury selection case, the Supreme Court held that the Jury Act of 1879, which reformed federal jury selection procedures, did not repeal the court's common law authority to summon bystanders (talesmen) to fill jury panels when the regular venire was exhausted. The Court also confirmed that trial courts may express opinions on the facts when charging juries without such opinions being reviewable on appeal, provided the court correctly states the law and leaves factual determinations to the jury.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice Gbat,

Mr. Justice Gbat,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill of exceptions presents two questions, neither of which requires extended discussion. 1. The act of June 30, 1879, c. 52, § 2, (21 Stat. 43,) which provides that (unless the judge orders the names of jurors to be drawn from the boxes used by the state authorities) all jurors, “ including those summoned during the session of the court,” shall be publicly drawn from a box containing not less than three hundred names, placed therein by the clerk and a commissioner appointed for the purpose — while it expressly repeals certain sections of the Revised Statutes, respecting the selection, qualifications and oath of jurors- — does not touch the power of the court, whenever, at the time of forming a jury to try a particular case, the panel of jurors previously summoned according to law is found for any reason to have been exhausted, to call in talesmen from the bystanders to suppljr the deficiency; and does not. eith'er expressly or by implication, repeal § 804 of the Revised Statutes, by' which, “ when, from challenges or otherwise, there is not a petit jury to determine any civil or criminal cause, the marshal or his deputy shall, by order of the court in which such defect of jurors happens, return jurymen from the bystanders sufficient to .complete the panel.” 3 Bl. Com. 364, 365; 4 Bl. Com. 354; United States v. Rose, 6 Fed. Rep. 136; Clawson v. United States, 114 U. S. 477, 487.

' 2. It is established' by repeated decisions that a court of the United States, in submitting a case to the jury, may at its discretion express its opinion upon the facts, and that-such an opinion is not reviewable on error, so long as no rule of law is incorrectly stated and all matters of fact are ultimately submitted to the determination of th^ jury. The charge of the Circuit Court in the present case was clearly within the rule. Rucker v. Wheeler, 127 U. S. 85, 93, and cases cited.

Judgment, ajjmned.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

  • Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1895)
    …tated, and the matters of fact are ultimately submitted to the determination of the jury, it has been held that an expression of opinion upon the facts is not reviewable on error. Rucker v. Wheeler, 127 U. S. 85, [*179] 93; Lovejoy v. United States, 128 U. S. 171, 173. But he. should take care to separate the law from, the facts, and to leave the latter in unequivocal terms to the judgment of the jury as their true and peculiar province. M'Lanahan v. Universal Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 170, 182. As the jurors are the…
  • Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1894)
    …ctly stated, and the matters of facts are ultimately submitted to the determination of the juryjit has been held that'an expression of opinion upon the facts is not re viewable on error. Rucker v. Wheeler, 127 U. S. 85, 93; Lovejoy v. United States, 128 U. S. 171, 173. But he should take care to separate the law from the facts and to leave the latter in unequivocal terms to the judgment of the jury as their true and peculiar province. M’Lanahan v. Universal Insurance Co., 1 Pet. 170, 182. As the jurors are t…
  • Simmons v. United States, 142 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1891)
    …e’s opinion on matters of fact was quite as plainly and strongly expressed to the jury as in the case at bar. Vicksburg &c. Railroad v. Putnam, 118 U. S. 545; United States v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad, 123 U. S. 113; Lovejoy v. United States, 128 U. S. 171. Judgment affirmed.…

Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw