EX PARTE GEORGE MILBURN
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.
George Milburn sought habeas corpus relief, arguing he could not be arrested on an indictment after posting bail (which was subsequently forfeited) and that a prior habeas corpus discharge barred his re-arrest. The Supreme Court held that a forfeited bail recognizance in a criminal case is merely a means to compel trial attendance and does not satisfy or discharge the underlying criminal charge, and that a habeas corpus discharge from one process does not bar arrest under the same indictment on a different process. The Court therefore denied Milburn's habeas corpus petition and upheld his detention under a bench warrant.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Justice Story,
after stating the facts of the case, delivered the opinion cf the Court. .
The points principally relied on at the argument are, in the first place, that the party is not liable .to be arrested to answer the indictment, after having given a recognizance of bail; although the recognizance has been forfeited, and the party has not appeared and answered, and been tried on the indlament : in the next place, that the discharge upon the habeas corpus before Mr Chief Justice Cranch, is a bar to any subsequent arrest.
We are of opinion that neither of these grounds can, in point of law, be maintained; A recognizance of bail, in a criminal case, is taken to secure the due attendance of the party accused, to answer th.e indictment, and to submit to a trial, and the judgment of the court thereon; It is not designed as a satisfaction for the offence, when it is forfeited and paid; but as a means of compelling the party to submit to the trial and punishment, which the la\v ordains for his offence. And, a fortiori, it cannot be deemed to apply to a case like the present, of a penitentiary offence; for that would be to suppose that the law allowed the party to purge away the offence, and the corporeal punishment, by a pecuniary compensation. There is nothing, in our opinion, in the Maryland statute of 1780, ch. 10, to charge this construction of the law.
The other ground is also unmaintainable. A discharge of a party under a writ of habeas corpus from the process under which he is imprisoned, discharges him from any further confinement under the process; but not under any other process, which may be issued against him under the same indictment.
For these reasons we are of opinion that the party is rightfully in custody under the bench warrant of the circuit court; and therefore, that the petition for the writ of habeas corpus ought to be denied.
The rule, therefore, to show cause is discharged; and the motion for the habeas corpqs is overruled.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Harp v. The Honorable Harry G. Hinckley, 410 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…secured only after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning. The right to release before trial is conditioned upon the accused’s giving adequate assurance that he will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty. Ex parte Milburn, 1835, 9 Pet. 704, 710, 9 L.Ed. 280. Like the ancient practice of securing the oaths of responsible persons to stand as sureties for the accused, the modern practice of requiring a bail bond or the deposit of a sum of money subject to forfeiture serves as additional…
-
Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1951)…secured only after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning. The right to Release before trial is conditioned upon the accused’s giving .adequate assurance that he will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty. Ex [*5] parte Milburn, 9 Pet. 704, 710 (1835). Like the ancient practice of securing the oaths of responsible persons to stand as sureties , for the accused, the modern practice of requiring a bail bond or the deposit of a sum of money subject to forfeiture serves as additional assu…
-
In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1890)…cognizance. When the cause of imprisonment or detention shown by the petition satisfies the court that the prisoner would be remanded, if brought up, the writ will not be awarded. Watkins’ Case, 3 Pet. 193, 201, per Marshall, C. J.; Milburn’s Case, 9 Pet. 704, 706; 2 Story Const. Law, 207, § 1341; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75. The practice in the English courts is the same. Bac. Ab. Habeas Corpus B. No. 44, case cited; 4 Comyn Dig. (Day’s ed.) 550 and note 3; Hallam’s Const. Law, 20; Penrice & Wynn’s…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 7 Pet. 568 (U.S. 1833)