UNITED STATES
v.
SHIPP
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.
In United States v. Shipp, the Supreme Court convicted six individuals, including a county sheriff, of criminal contempt for their roles in a lynching that occurred in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where they failed to protect a prisoner in their custody from a mob. The Court sentenced Shipp, Williams, and Nolan to ninety days imprisonment and Gibson, Padgett, and Mayes to sixty days imprisonment, establishing that officials who permit mob violence against prisoners in their custody can be prosecuted for contempt of court in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice announced the judgment of the court as follows:
You, Joseph F. Shipp, Jeremiah Gibson, Luther Williams, Nick Nolan, Henry Padgett and William Mayes, are before this court on an attachment for contempt. •
On return to a rule to show cause you have presented such evidence as you were advised and been fully heard orally and on printed briefs, and after thorough consideration you have been found guilty. You have also been permitted severally to present petitions for rehearing and move that leave be granted to file them, which after consideration have been denied.
The grounds upon which the conclusion was reached are set forth in the opinion filed herein on Monday, May 24, 1909, and need not be repeated, nor need we dwell upon the destructive consequences of permitting the transaction complained of to pass into a precedent for unpunished contempt.
It is considered by the court, and the judgment of the court is, that as punishment for the contempt you, Joseph F. Shipp, Luther. Williams and Nick Nolan, and each of you, be imprisoned for the period of ninety days, and that you, Jeremiah Gibson, Henry Padgett and William Mayes, and each of you, be imprisoned for the period of sixty days,, in the jail of the District of Columbia, The marshal of this court is charged with the execution of this judgment.
November 17, 1909, the marshal filed a return that the judgment of the court had been executed according to the tenor thereof.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1964)…was a case of original jurisdiction in this Court, testimony was then taken before a commissioner, not a jury, 214 U. S. 386, 471. After argument this [*698] Court adjudged the defendants guilty, 214 U. S. 386, and sentenced some of them to prison, 215 U. S. 580. Mr. Justice Holmes also wrote another leading case in the contempt field in 1914, Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, in which he made explicit what he left implicit in Shipp, supra: “It is urged in the first place that contempts cannot be c…
-
United States v. City OF Philadelphia, 644 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1980)…tional security, may the Attorney General sue to enjoin publication of such unflattering commentaries? . Or to protect the integrity of the judiciary, see United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 27 S.Ct. 165, 51 L.Ed. 319 (1906); 214 U.S. 386 (1909); 215 U.S. 580 (1909) (upholding nonstat-utory information filed against defendants for criminal contempt of the Supreme Court when the Court was considering habeas corpus petition of state prisoner and defendants instigated prisoner’s lynching). See also In re Ne…
-
United States v. Barnett, 330 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1963)…oceedings in criminal contempt. We do find such a proceeding for contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States, viz.: United States v. Shipp, 1906, 203 U.S. 563, 27 S.Ct. 165, 51 L.Ed. 319; 1909, 214 U.S. 386, 29 S.Ct. 637, 53 L.Ed. 1041; 1909, 215 U.S. 580, 30 S.Ct. 397, 54 L.Ed. 337. That proceeding was disposed of by the Supreme Court without the intervenion of a jury. We find in the opinions of the Court no discussion of any right of trial by jury, but it clearly appears from the following part of…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Shipp, 214 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1909)