CERECEDO
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.
In this Supreme Court review of a lower court decision, Cerecedo claimed the trial court violated constitutional rights by refusing to return papers seized under a search warrant and by admitting those papers as evidence. The Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the record lacked a bill of exceptions necessary to establish what constitutional questions were actually decided below, and Cerecedo failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that would warrant the Court's supply of this procedural deficiency.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by
Mr.' Chief Justice White,
by direction of the court.
The plaintiffs in error prosecute this writ under the assumption that the court below denied rights asserted by them under the Constitution, by refusing as prayed, to return papers taken from them under a search warrant and in permitting the papers over objection to be offered in evidence. There is no bill of exceptions in the record and nothing which enables us to lawfully ascertain the existence of the constitutional questions relied upon. Clune v. United States, 159 U. S. 590; Metropolitan R. R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 195 U. S. 322; Porto Rico v. Emanuel, 235 U. S. 251, 255.
There is nothing, therefore, before us unless there be merit in contentions to the contrary which are pressed and which we briefly dispose of. First: On the face of things it is obvious that the postponing at the last term of the consideration of a motion to dismiss was not a decision of the question of power to review. Second: Even indulging, for the sake of the argument only, in the assumption of the correctness of the proposition urged that an extraordinary discretion might exist in some extreme case to supply the entire absence of a bill of exceptions, we see no ground whatever for the premise that this is a case of that character. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miers v. Brownlow (S.D. Ala. 1927)…on which the allowance to land may be denied, prohibits the denial in other eases. And when the record shows that a Commissioner of Immigration is exceeding his power, the alien may demand his release upon habeas corpus.” Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U. S. 9, 36 S. Ct. 3, 60 L. Ed. 114.. There are many cases holding that in deportation cases the alien has the right to be represented by counsel. It may be, however, these were based on rule 18, for most of them do not undertake to show how they arrive at [*379] their…
Authorities Cited (16 total)
- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (U.S. 1886)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1914)
- Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1905)
- Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382 (U.S. 1897)
- Clune v. United States, 159 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1895)
- Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1901)
- Wilson v. United States, 149 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1893)
- Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1904)
- Metro. R.R. Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 195 U.S. 322 (U.S. 1904)
- Hall v. United States, 150 U.S. 76 (U.S. 1893)