UNITED STATES
v.
DEWALT

U.S. | 1888-11-19
No. 81
128 U.S. 393 Supreme Court of the United States (1888) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 32 L. Ed. 485 · 9 S. Ct. 111 · SCDB 1888-040 · 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2226
Cited by 18 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

DeWalt was convicted of embezzlement and making false entries as president of a national bank and sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary, but was discharged on habeas corpus because the crime was deemed infamous and therefore required prosecution by grand jury indictment rather than information. The Supreme Court affirmed the discharge, holding that imprisonment in a state prison or penitentiary constitutes an infamous punishment regardless of whether hard labor is imposed as part of the sentence.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.

DeWalt, the appellee, was tried and convicted, upon an information of the crime of embezzlement and making false entries as the president of a national bank, in violation of § 5209 of the Eevised Statutes, and sentenced and committed to the penitentiary for ten years. This section prescribes the punishment of imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years, which imprisonment may be ordered to be executed in a state jail or penitentiary. Eev. Stat. § 5541. Appellee was subsequently discharged on habeas corpus upon the ground that the crime in question was an infamous crime, for which he could not; under the Constitution, be held to answer on information, but only on presentment or indictment by a, grand-jury. From the order discharging him this appeal is prosecuted, and it is contended that a crime is not infamous which is not subject to the penalty of hard labor as part of the punishment of imprisonment.

This, however, was otherwise ruled in Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348, 352, where, this court held, speaking through Mr. Justice Gray, “that at the present day imprisonment in a state prison or penitentiary, with or without hard ' labor, is an infamous punishment.”

That case is decisive of this, and the order appealed from must be .

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)
    …. S. 727; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417; In re Snow, 120 U. S. 274; Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1; Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540; In re Coy, 127 U. S. 731; United States v. DeWalt, 128 U. S. 393; Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 176; In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242; Andersen v. Treat, 172 U. S. 24; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197; In re Heff, 197 U. S. 488; Morgan v. Devine, 237 U. S. 632; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71; Escoe v. Zerbst, 2…
  • Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1890)
    …a place where imprisonment always implies disgrace,- and which, as this court has judicially decided in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417; Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348; Parkinson v. United States, 121 U. S. 281; and United States v. De Walt, 128 U. S. 393, is itself an infamous punishment, and is there to be kept in “ solitary confinement,” the primary meaning of which phrase we have already explained. The qualifying phrase in this statute is but a- small mitigation of this solitary confinement, for…
  • Dimmick v. Tompkins, 194 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1904)

Previewing 3 of 7 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