WYMAN
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.
Wyman was charged with violating the National Prohibition Act by information rather than grand jury indictment, and he moved to dismiss on the ground that the offense constituted an infamous crime under the Fifth Amendment because the applicable statutes authorized imprisonment at hard labor. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that the crime charged was not infamous within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and therefore did not require prosecution by grand jury indictment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff in error was proceeded against by an information for the violation of a section of the National Prohibition Act.
A motion was made to dismiss the information on the ground that the crime charged was an infamous one within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the'Constitution of the United States, in that by reason of the statutes of the United States and those of New. York and New Jersey, the court had. power to impose an infamous punishment, namely imprisonment at hard labor and imprisonment at involuntary labor, and that, therefore,. Wyman could not be held to answer for such crime except upon presentment or indictment by a grand jury.
The motion was. denied and after trial plaintiff in error was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 45 days in the Essex County jail, Newark, New Jersey.
To review this conviction and sentence is the pffrpose of this writ of error..
It will be observed that the case is identical in its legal aspects with Brede v. Powers, just decided, ante, 4. Eor the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the proceedings, action and judgment are
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice McReynolds' and Mr. Justice Brandéis . concur in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
United States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1950)…. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095. . Dunne v. United States, 138 F. 2d 137. . 54 St. at D. 676. . The Abby Dodge, 223 U.S. 166, 32 S.Ct. 310, 56 L.Ed. 390; Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 33 S.Ct. 780, 57 L.Ed. 1232; United States v. Walter, 263 U.S. 15, 44 S.Ct. 10, 68 L.Ed. 137; National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 635, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352; American Power Company v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 329 U.S. 90, 67 S.Ct. 133, 91 L.Ed. 103. . Blacks…
-
Langer v. United States, 76 F.2d 817 (8th Cir. 1935)…ficient that the government owns all of the stock in the corporation. There are other cases in which it has been held that the doctrine of separate entity was not applicable. Among these we cite the following: United States v. Walter, 263 U. S. 15, 44 S. Ct. 10, 11, 68 L. Ed. 137; United States Grain Corp. v. Phillips, 261 U. S. 106, 43 S. Ct. 283, 285, 67 L. Ed. 552; United States v. Carlin (D. C.) 259 F. 904; United States v. Union Timber Products Co. (D. C.) 259 F. 907; United States v. Clallam County,…
-
Weir v. United States, 92 F.2d 634 (7th Cir. 1937)…tate corporations with their consent as instrumentalities of the United States, Clallam County v. United States, 263 U.S. 341, 44 S.Ct. 121, 68 L.Ed. 328, and may make frauds that impair their efficiency crimes. United States v. Walter, 263 U.S. 15, 44 S.Ct. 10, 68 L.Ed. 137.” From Mr. Justice Holmes’ reasoning, it follows quite logically that if a state bank chooses to become an insured bank and thus to obtain and enjoy the benefits of deposit insurance furnished by the government through its agency crea…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence