THE UNITED STATES VERSUS HAMILTON
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 case involving treason charges against Hamilton, the Supreme Court admitted the defendant to bail pending trial at the next stated Circuit Court, while declining to appoint a special circuit court at a location closer to where the alleged offenses occurred. Justice Wilson explained that the Court could not order a special court because doing so would interfere with the jurisdiction of the regularly scheduled Circuit Court, would create questions about prosecuting indictments across different court sessions, and would raise constitutional concerns about impaneling multiple grand juries simultaneously for the same district.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
after holding the subject for some days under advisement, directed the prisoner to be admitted to bail, himself in the sum of 4000 dollars, and two sureties, each in the sum of 2000 dollars.
WILSON, Justice.
The recognizance must be taken for the defendant’s appearance at the next stated Circuit Court. The motion for appointing a special Circuit Court to try offences of this description, at a place nearer to the scene in which they occurred, has not escaped our attention; and with a wish, if possible, to grant it, we have viewed the subject in every light; but hitherto the difficulties are apparently insurmountable. We will,however, state the principal ones, that the Counsel may, if they please, endeavour to remove them.
1. The next stated Circuit Court is so near, that it will not be possible to commence and finish the business of the trials for Treason, at a Special Court to be previously held; and it is very questionable, whether we can appoint a Special Circuit Court at a distant period, to overleap the session of the stated Court. The impropriety of such an interference is the more striking, when it is recollected, that the Circuit Court itself, as well as the Supreme Court, has a power to appoint a special sessions for the trial of criminal causes. 1 Vol. s. 4. p. 51.
2. But even if a special Court were to be appointed to be held at a distant period, overleaping the stated Circuit Court, could an indictment found at the latter, be prosecuted and tried at the former? There is a provision, “That all business depending for trial at any Special Court, shall, at the close thereof, be considered as of course removed to the next stated term of the Circuit Court,” (2 Vol. Swift's Edit. s. 3. p. 227.) but there is no power given to remit to a special Court, the business depending for trial, before the stated Circuit Court.
3. And suppose a special Circuit Court were to be appointed previously to the stated Court, could both be in session at the same time? Or, could two grand juries be impannelled at the same time, for the same district, and both be qualified to present all the offences, (including, of course, the offences of Treason) committed within their jurisdiction*.
*
Lewis and M. Levy, (as I am informed) attempted to obviate the obstacles above suggested; but, it appears, without effect, as a special Circuit Court was not appointed on this occasion; See the Trials for Treason, 2 vol. p. 335. to p. 357.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1975)…ranch, at 97-101. This practice furnished the model for criminal procedure in America immediately following the adoption of the [*116] Fourth Amendment, see Ex parte Bollman, supra;16 Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch 448 (1806); United States v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17 (1795), and there are indications that the Framers of the Bill of Rights regarded it as a model for a “reasonable” seizure. See Draper v. United States, 358 U. S., at 317-320 (Douglas, J., dissenting).17 B Under the Florida procedures challenged h…
-
Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1879)…r court would have been a more regular proceeding. We cannot say, however, it was indispensable, especially in view of the fact that a State is seeking release of one of her officers, and in view of former action in this court. In Ex parte Hamilton (3 Dall. 17), this court awarded a ¶ rit of habeas corpus, to review a commitment under a warrant of a district judge. In Ex parte Burford (3 Cranch, 448), such a writ was awarded to review a commitment by the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, not to r…
-
In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1890)…adjudicated case in the United States courts, with one exception, has been under wr.its sued out for relief against an actual arrest of a party under process, or his confinement by claim of authority of the United States. United States v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17; United States v. Johns, 4 Dall. 412; Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch, 448; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75; Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 201; Ex parte Milburn, 9 Pet. 704.; United States v. Bainbridge,. 1 Mason, 71; Ex par…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence