THE UNITED STATES VERSUS FRIES
Peters, DijlriSi Judge,
did not think, that either objection ought to prevail. He thought that the venire, and returns of the jurors, were authorifed by principle and precedent; and that the declarations of Rhodes were fueh as might naturally be made in relation to the infurredtion, without m,ani-fefting á particular hoftility towards the prifoner, or leading to a convidtoh in fpite of any evidence, or argument, that might occur on the trial As, however, the confcquence of dividing the Court, would be a rejection of the motion ; and as the inte-refts of public juftice, and the influence of public example, would not be impaired by the delay of a new trial, the District Judge determined to acquiefce in the opinion of Judge Irepe£1. •
A new trial awarded. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1957)
-
Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1895)
-
Rubenstein v. United States, 227 F.2d 638 (10th Cir. 1955)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence