TREZZA
v.
BRUSH

U.S. | 1891-12-21
No. 1123
142 U.S. 160 Supreme Court of the United States (1891) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 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

Trezza, convicted of murder and sentenced to death in New York, sought federal habeas corpus relief claiming that his initial imprisonment under the first execution warrant constituted punishment that violated the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and that solitary confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the writ, finding no constitutional violation in the execution procedures or conditions of confinement.


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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller :

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller :

Trezza was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Court of Sessions of Kings County, New York, June 6, 1890, and sentenced to death. The warrant for the execution of the judgment and sentence was duly issued to the agent and warden of the state prison at Sing Sing, and under it Trezza was committed to his custody. An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals and the judgment affirmed, (125 N. Y. 740,) whereupon, March 6,1891, the Court of Sessions ordered the judgment of conviction and sentence of death to be executed and enforced in the manner provided by law, and issued a second warrant to the warden. Trezza then presented his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and brings the order of that court denying its prayer to this court on appeal.

Petitioner claimed that by his imprisonment under the first warrant he had been once punished for the offence for which he had been convicted, and that solitary confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, and hence that he was restrained in violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the 'Constitution of the United States; and he objected hlso that the warrant was not sufficiently definite and specific.

The record has not been printed nor have briefs been filed on either side, and appellant was not represented by counsel when the cause came on for hearing. We have, however, carefully examined the transcript, and find no ,ground upon which to arrive at a different conclusion from that just announced in the case of McElvaine.

The judgment is affirmed, and the mandate ordered to issue at once.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Murphy v. Massachusetts, 177 U.S. 155 (U.S. 1900)
    …ime fixed by the first sentence.” Trezza also applied to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York for a writ of habeas corpus, which the court refused to grant, and its order was affirmed by this court on appeal. 142 U. S. 160. In McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U. S. 155, McElvaine had been sentenced to death, and the judgment was reversed and a new trial granted. He was again convicted and sentenced, and the judgment affirmed on appeal. 125 N. Y. 596. McElvaine presented his p…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw