List of criminal cases in the Marshall Court

Last updated • 5 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

The Marshall Court (18011835) heard forty-one criminal cases. The Court heard two writs of error from the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia under § 8 of the second Judiciary Act of 1801, six original habeas petitions under § 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, thirty-one certificates of division under § 6 of the Judiciary Act of 1802, and two writs of error from the state courts under § 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

The criminal jurisdiction of the Marshall Court was greatly limited by the Court's disclaiming of appellate jurisdiction from the United States circuit courts by means of a writ of error in United States v. More (1805), as well as the Court's disclaiming the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners detained pursuant to a post-conviction criminal sentence in Ex parte Kearney (1822) and Ex parte Watkins (1830). Certificates of division could only be issued in criminal cases heard by a two-judge panel consisting of a United States district court judge and a Supreme Court justice riding circuit (the district judge or the circuit rider could also hear cases alone). Further, certificates could not be issued with regard to the legal sufficiency of the evidencewhether on a motion for a new trial, as held in United States v. Daniel (1821), or a motion for a directed verdict, as held in United States v. Bailey (1835).

CaseCitationYearCrime(s)AuthorDissent(s)Source of jurisdictionLower courtCircuit riderNotes
United States v. Simms 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 2521803 Faro gambling (Virginia law) Marshall NoneWrit of error C.C.D.C. N/A
United States v. More 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 1591805Common law exaction of an illegal fee colour of his office (Virginia law) Marshall NoneWrit of error C.C.D.C. [1] N/A [2]
Ex parte Burford 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 4481806N/A Marshall NoneOriginal habeas C.C.D.C. (habeas); Alexandria County justices of the peace (warrant)N/A [3]
Ex parte Bollman 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 751807Treason [4] and the Neutrality Act of 1794 [5] Marshall Johnson Original habeas C.C.D.C. [6] N/A [3]
United States v. Cantril 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 1671807Counterfeiting [7] Marshall NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Ga. Johnson [8]
United States v. Hudson 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 321812Common law libel Johnson NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Conn. Livingston [9]
United States v. Tyler 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 2851812Embargo [10] Livingston NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Vt. Livingston
United States v. Barber 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 2431815Embargo [11] Per curiam NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Vt. Livingston [12]
United States v. Coolidge 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 4151816Common law piracy Johnson NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Mass. [13] Story [9]
United States v. Sheldon 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 1191817Embargo [11] Washington NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Vt. Livingston [12]
United States v. Bevans 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 3361818Piracy [14] Marshall NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Mass. [15] Story [16]
United States v. Palmer 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 6101818Piracy [14] Marshall Johnson Certificate of divisionC.C.D. Mass. Story [17]
United States v. Klintock 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1441820Piracy [14] Marshall NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Va. Marshall [17]
United States v. Smith 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1531820Piracy [18] Story Livingston Certificate of divisionC.C.D. Va. Marshall [17]
United States v. Furlong 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1841820Piracy [14] Johnson NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Ga.; C.C.D.S.C. Johnson [19]
United States v. Holmes 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 4121820Piracy [14] Washington NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Mass. Story [20]
United States v. Wiltberger 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 761820Piracy [21] Marshall NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.E.D. Pa. [22] Washington [23]
Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 2641821Lottery (Virginia law) Marshall NoneWrit of errorQuarterly Session Court for the Borough of Norfolk, VirginiaN/A [24]
United States v. Daniel 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 5421821Piracy [25] Marshall NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D.S.C. Johnson [26]
Ex parte Kearney 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 381822Contempt of court Story NoneOriginal habeas C.C.D.C. N/A
United States v. Perez 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 5791824Piracy [18] Story NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.S.D.N.Y. [27] Thompson [28]
United States v. Amedy 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 3921826Maritime insurance fraud [29] Story NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Va. Marshall [30]
United States v. Kelly 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 4171826Piracy [21] Washington NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.E.D. Pa. [31] Washington [23]
United States v. Ortega 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 4671826Assault on ambassador [32] Washington NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.E.D. Pa. [33] Washington [34]
United States v. Gooding 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 4601827Slave trading [35] Story NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Md. Duvall [36]
United States v. Marchant 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 4801827Piracy [14] Story NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Mass. [37] Story
Ex parte Watkins 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 1931830Common law fraud (Maryland law) Marshall NoneOriginal habeas C.C.D.C. [38] N/A
United States v. Paul 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 1411832Assimilative burglary (New York law) [39] Marshall NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.S.D.N.Y. Thompson
United States v. Reyburn 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 3521832 Neutrality Act of 1818 [40] Thompson NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Md. Duvall
United States v. Quincy 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 4451832 Neutrality Act of 1818 [40] Thompson NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Md. Duvall
Worcester v. Georgia 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 5151832Unlicensed presence in Cherokee country (Georgia law) Marshall Baldwin Writ of error Superior Court for the County of Gwinnett, GeorgiaN/A [41]
United States v. Phillips 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 7761832Interference with diplomatic immunity [42] Per curiam NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.E.D. Pa. Baldwin [43]
United States v. Turner 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 1321833Counterfeiting [44] Story NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D.N.C. Marshall
United States v. Wilson 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 1501833Mail robbery [45] Marshall NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.E.D. Pa. [46] Baldwin
United States v. Brewster 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 1641833Counterfeiting [44] Per curiam NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.E.D. Pa. Baldwin
United States v. Mills 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 1381833Mail robbery [47] Thompson NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D.N.C. Marshall
Ex parte Watkins 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 5681833Common law fraud (Maryland law) Story Johnson; McLean Original habeas C.C.D.C. [38] N/A
United States v. Randenbush 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 2881834Counterfeiting [48] Marshall NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Pa. Baldwin
United States v. Bailey 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 2381835False statements [49] Story McLean Certificate of divisionC.C.D. Ky. McLean
United States v. Bailey 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 2671835False statements [49] Marshall NoneCertificate of divisionC.C.D. Ky. McLean
Ex parte Milburn 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 7041835 Faro gambling (Maryland law) Story NoneOriginal habeas C.C.D.C. [50] N/A

Notes

  1. The decision of the D.C. circuit court is reported at United States v. More, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 159, 160 n.* (1805).
  2. James M. O'Fallon, The Case of Benjamin More: A Lost Episode in the Struggle over Repeal of the 1801 Judiciary Act, 11 Law & Hist. Rev. 43 (1993).
  3. 1 2 Eric M. Freedman, Milestones in Habeas Corpus: Part I: Just Because John Marshall Said It, Doesn't Make It So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789, 51 Ala. L. Rev. 531 (2000).
  4. Crimes Act of 1790, § 1, 1 Stat. 112, 112.
  5. Neutrality Act of 1794, § 5, 1 Stat. 381, 384.
  6. United States v. Bollman, 24 F. Cas. 1189 (C.C.D.C. 1807) (No. 14,622).
  7. Act of June 27, 1798, 1 Stat. 573.
  8. Henderson, 1985, at 3233; Keith E. Whittington, Judicial Review of Congress Before the Civil War, 97 Geo. L.J. 1257, 128991 (2009).
  9. 1 2 Gary D. Rowe, The Sound of Silence: United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, the Jeffersonian Ascendancy, and the Abolition of Federal Common Law Crimes, 101 Yale L.J. 919 (1992).
  10. Act of Jan. 9, 1809, 2 Stat. 506.
  11. 1 2 Act of July 6, 1812, § 2, 2 Stat. 778, 77980.
  12. 1 2 Henderson, 1985, at 116.
  13. United States v. Coolidge, 25 F. Cas. 619 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813) (No. 14,857).
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Crimes Act of 1790, § 8, 1 Stat. 112, 11314.
  15. United States v. Bevans, 24 F. Cas. 1138 (C.C.D. Mass. 1816) (No. 14,589).
  16. Henderson, 1985, at 4041.
  17. 1 2 3 G. Edward White, The Marshall Court and International Law: The Piracy Cases, 83 Am. J. Int'l L. 727 (1989).
  18. 1 2 Act of Mar. 3, 1819, §5, 3 Stat. 510, 51314.
  19. Henderson, 1985, at 14142.
  20. Henderson, 1985, at 134.
  21. 1 2 Crimes Act of 1790, § 12, 1 Stat. 112, 115.
  22. United States v. Wiltberger, 28 F. Cas. 727 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1819) (No. 16,738).
  23. 1 2 Henderson, 1985, at 41.
  24. Mark A. Graber, The Passive-Aggressive Virtues: Cohens v. Virginia and the Problematic Establishment of Judicial Power, 12 Const. Comment. 67 (1995).
  25. Crimes Act of 1790, § 5, 1 Stat. 112, 113.
  26. Henderson, 1985, at 143.
  27. United States v. Perez, 27 F. Cas. 504 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1823) (No. 16,033).
  28. A Correct Report of the Trial of Josef Perez for Piracy (New York: J.W. Bell ed., 1823).
  29. Act of Mar. 26, 1804, § 2, 2 Stat. 290, 290.
  30. Henderson, 1985, at 4243.
  31. United States v. Kelly, 26 F. Cas. 700 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1825) (No. 15,516).
  32. Crimes Act of 1790, § 28, 1 Stat. 112, 118.
  33. United States v. Ortega, 27 F. Cas. 359 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1825) (No. 15,971).
  34. Henderson, 1985, at 46.
  35. Slave Trade Act of 1818, §§ 23, 3 Stat. 450, 451.
  36. Henderson, 1985, at 198.
  37. United States v. White, 28 F. Cas. 580 (C.C.D. Mass. 1826) (No. 16,682).
  38. 1 2 United States v. Watkins, 28 F. Cas. 419 (C.C.D.C. 1829) (No. 16,649); United States v. Watkins, 28 F. Cas. 490 (C.C.D.C. 1833) (No. 16,650).
  39. Crimes Act of 1825, § 3, 4 Stat. 115, 115.
  40. 1 2 Neutrality Act of 1818, § 3, 3 Stat. 447, 448.
  41. Edwin A. Miles, After John Marshall's Decision: Worcester v. Georgia and the Nullification Crisis, 39 J. S. Hist. 519 (1973).
  42. Crimes Act of 1790, § 26, 1 Stat. 112, 118.
  43. Privileges of Foreign Agents, National Gazette (Philadelphia), May 18, 1830, reprinted in, Niles' Weekly Register, May 29, 1830.
  44. 1 2 Act of Apr. 10, 1816, § 18, 3 Stat. 266, 275.
  45. Act of Mar. 3, 1825, § 22, 4 Stat. 108, 121.
  46. United States v. Wilson, 28 F. Cas. 699 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1830) (No. 16,730).
  47. Act of Mar. 3, 1824, § 24, 4 Stat. 102, 109.
  48. Crimes Act of 1825, § 18, 4 Stat. 115, 120.
  49. 1 2 Act of Mar. 1, 1823, 3 Stat. 770.
  50. United States v. Milburn, 26 F. Cas. 1242 (C.C.D.C. 1824) (No. 15,764); United States v. Milburn, 26 F. Cas. 1242 (C.C.D.C. 1834) (No. 15,765); United States v. Milburn, 26 F. Cas. 1243 (C.C.D.C. 1835) (No. 15,766); United States v. Milburn, 26 F. Cas. 1252 (C.C.D.C. 1836) (No. 15,768); United States v. Milburn, 26 F. Cas. 1253 (C.C.D.C. 1838) (No. 15,767).

Related Research Articles

<i>Ex parte Merryman</i>

Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (No. 9487), is a well-known and controversial U.S. federal court case that arose out of the American Civil War. It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" under the Constitution's Suspension Clause, when Congress was in recess and therefore unavailable to do so itself. More generally, the case raised questions about the ability of the executive branch to decline enforcement of orders from the judicial branch when the executive believes them to be erroneous and harmful to its own legal powers.

United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island United States district court

The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Rhode Island. The District Court was created in 1790 when Rhode Island ratified the Constitution. The Federal Courthouse was built in 1908.

William Cranch United States federal judge

William Cranch was an American attorney and judge. He was notable for his role as the second reporter of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and his long tenure as a judge on the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia.

The writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term "coram nobis" is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the English court of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

The Midnight Judges Act represented an effort to solve an issue in the U.S. Supreme Court during the early 19th century. There was concern, beginning in 1789, about the system that required the Justices of the Supreme Court to "ride circuit" and reiterate decisions made in the appellate level courts. The Supreme Court Justices had often voiced concern and suggested that the judges of the Supreme and circuit courts be divided. President Thomas Jefferson did not want the judiciary to gain more power over the executive branch.

Extradition law in the United States is the formal process by which a fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country or state for trial, punishment, or rehabilitation. For foreign countries, the process is regulated by treaty and conducted between the federal government of the United States and the government of a foreign country. The process is considerably different from interstate or intrastate extradition. Florida, Alaska, and Hawaii do not extradite for a misdemeanor conviction that was convicted in the US, as of 2010. Some felonies are an exception in American law such as a crime that is violent in nature, or a sexual offense, or felony driving while intoxicated; they will entail extradition from all states in the United States. Theft charges and small drug crimes are the exception; for instance, if a minor crime is committed in Florida, a person apprehended in Idaho will not be extradited back to the original crime's jurisdiction. Federal charges are governed by US federal law and most states, with the exceptions of South Carolina and Missouri, have adopted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. In practice, Florida, Alaska, and Hawaii typically do not extradite if the crime in question is not a felony because of the associated costs of transporting the suspect and the housing fees that must be paid to the jurisdiction in which the accused is held until transported.

Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (1863)

The Habeas Corpus Suspension, 12 Stat. 755 (1863), entitled An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases, was an Act of Congress that authorized the president of the United States to suspend the of the writ of habeas corpus in response to the American Civil War and provided for the release of political prisoners. It began in the House of Representatives as an indemnity bill, introduced on December 5, 1862, releasing the president and his subordinates from any liability for having suspended habeas corpus without congressional approval. The Senate amended the House's bill, and the compromise reported out of the conference committee altered it to qualify the indemnity and to suspend habeas corpus on Congress's own authority. Abraham Lincoln signed the bill into law on March 3, 1863, and suspended habeas corpus under the authority it granted him six months later. The suspension was partially lifted with the issuance of Proclamation 148 by Andrew Johnson, and the Act became inoperative with the end of the Civil War. The exceptions to his Proclamation 148 were the States of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction.

Criminal law in the Taney Court

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

Riding circuit was one of the responsibilities of U.S. Supreme Court justices during the Marshall Court (1801–1835). Under the Judiciary Act of 1801, the United States federal judicial districts were divided into six United States circuit courts—one for each justice. Rather than appointing separate circuit judges, the circuit courts were staffed by a combination of the resident United States district court judges from that district and the Supreme Court justice assigned to that circuit.

Criminal law in the Chase Court

The Chase Court (1864–1873) issued thirty-five opinions in criminal cases over nine years, at a significantly higher rate than the Marshall Court or Taney Court before it. Notable such cases include Ex parte Milligan (1866), Pervear v. Massachusetts (1866), Ex parte McCardle, Ex parte Yerger (1868), and United States v. Kirby (1868).

Criminal law in the Waite Court

During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases. In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice. Notable cases include United States v. Cruikshank (1875), United States v. Reese (1875), Reynolds v. United States (1878), Wilkerson v. Utah (1879), the Trade-Mark Cases (1879), Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), Pace v. Alabama (1883), United States v. Harris (1883), Ex parte Crow Dog (1883), Hurtado v. California (1884), Clawson v. United States (1885), Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), United States v. Kagama (1886), Ker v. Illinois (1886), and Mugler v. Kansas (1887).

Crimes Act of 1790

The Crimes Act of 1790, formally titled An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States, defined some of the first federal crimes in the United States and expanded on the criminal procedure provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Crimes Act was a "comprehensive statute defining an impressive variety of federal crimes."

Crimes Act of 1825

The Crimes Act of 1825, formally titled An Act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes, was the first piece of omnibus federal criminal legislation since the Crimes Act of 1790. In general, the 1825 act provided more punishment than the 1790 act. The maximum authorized sentence of imprisonment was increased from 7 to 10 years; the maximum fine from $5,000 to $10,000. But, the punishments of stripes and pillory were not provided for.

Certificate of division

A certificate of division was a source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1802 to 1911. Created by the Judiciary Act of 1802, the certification procedure was available only where the circuit court sat with a full panel of two: both the resident district judge and the circuit-riding Supreme Court justice. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, he did not have "the privilege of dividing the court when alone."

United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which provides the writ of coram nobis as the proper application to request federal post-conviction judicial review for those who have completed the conviction's incarceration.

References