LEWIS
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
Lewis was indicted for mail fraud in 1905 but sought discharge based on denial of a speedy trial; after years of continuances, the government entered a nolle prosequi dismissing the indictment, and Lewis appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that an accused person cannot appeal an order discharging him from prosecution because he suffers no legal injury and lacks standing, and further ruling that the case became moot once the statute of limitations expired.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Lewis was indicted December 1, 1905, in the . District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri, charged with depositing certain' letters in a-postT office of the United.States in pursuance of a scheme to defraud, in' violation of § 5480 of the Revised Statutes.
‘General orders continuing all pending criminal cases were thereafter entered-at each term until November 5, 1907, when plaintiff in error, defendant below, moved for a discharge from the accusations of the indictment upon the ground, that his right to a speedy trial had been denied. The court ordered that unless the cause should be proceeded with at that term the motion would be sustained; but later all pending criminal cases were again continued by general order. At the following May term defendant below again filed a motion, to discharge and the United States Attorney asked leave to enter a nolle prosequi. Defendant’s motion was overruled and the nolle prosequi entered, releasing-and discharging defendant from further prosecution upon the indictment. A motion to set aside the nolle prosequi was made and overruled, and this writ-of error direct to this court sued out under § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891.
It thus appears that thié is an appeal by a person indicted for crime from an order of the court releasing and discharging him from further prosecution under the indictment. Plaintiff in error could not complain until he was made to suffer, Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445, and when discharged from custody he is not legally aggrieved and therefore cannot appeal. Commonwealth v. Graves, 112 Massachusetts, 282; Anglo-American Prov. Co. v. Davis Prov. Co., 191 U. S. 376. The indictment having been dismissed, the question as to plaintiff in error’s constitutional right to a speedy trial is not involved in such a real sense as to give this court jurisdiction. Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276, 284. Pláintiff in error was indicted December 1, 1905, for certain violations of § 5480 of the Revised Statutés, alleged to have been committed on the first day of February, 1904. That indictment having been nolle prossed and no new indictment appearing to have been returned against him within three-years from the date of the commission of the alleged offenses, or, if returned, to be still pending, it is manifest that he has been discharged by the Statute of Limitations and that this case in the circumstances discloséd has become merely a moot case.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513 (U.S. 1956)…almost a fantastic interpretation of “finality” to hold otherwise. The majority contend that, even if the dismissal had the requisite finality, petitioner may not appeal it because he was not aggrieved thereby, relying upon Lewis v. United States, 216 U. S. 611. But that case should not control here, since no new indictment had been returned against Lewis before or after the dismissal of the indictment he sought to have reviewed, and an applicable statute of limitations barred any further effort to indict…1 / 2
-
Cochran v. M & M Transp. Co., 110 F.2d 519 (1st Cir. 1940)…s, 306 U.S. 204, 59 S.Ct. 480, 83 L.Ed. 608; Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 1934, 292 U.S. 151, 176, 54 S.Ct. 658, 78 L.Ed. 1182; New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U.S. 645, 54 S.Ct. 443, 78 L.Ed. 1041; Lewis v. United States, 1910, 216 U.S. 611, 30 S.Ct. 438, 54 L.Ed. 637; Guarantee Co. of North America v. Phenix Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 1903, 124 F. 170, 173; Rogers v. Penobscot Mining Co., 8 Cir., 154 F. 606. See Harding v. Federal National Bank, 1 Cir., 1929, 31 F. 2d 914. In Guarantee Co. o…
-
United States v. Lanham, 631 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1980)…the judgment sought to be reviewed can appeal, and ... petitioner has not been injured by [the prosecution’s] termination in his favor.” Id. at 516-17, 76 S.Ct. at 915. The Court grounded this determination on its decision in Lewis v. United States, 216 U.S. 611, 30 S.Ct. 438, 54 L.Ed. 637 (1910), in which it held that the accused was not aggrieved by entry of a nolle prosequi against him; he therefore had no standing to appeal: It thus appears that this is an appeal by a person indicted for crime from an…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ohio ex rel. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1904)
- Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1901)
- Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. No. 2, 191 U.S. 376 (U.S. 1903)