Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

longing to enemies taken by the United States during war time.18 This principle of compensation under right of eminent domain is a common law principle.165 Compensation under this right may be sued for in the Court of Claims.1

166

§ 247. Trial by jury in criminal cases.-The right of a trial by jury in criminal prosecutions by the United States Government is twice provided for in the Constitution: "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."167 "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law."168 If there is any conflict in these provisions the one in the sixth amendment, being the later in point of time, must prevail.16

171

The right to a trial by jury extends to all cases which are technically criminal;170 the right is co-extensive with the exemption from trial except on a presentment or indictment by a grand jury. A person accused of contempt of court is not entitled to a trial by jury.172 The recent judicial history of the United States has shown this to be the most serious omission in the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights.

In Callan v. Wilson173 it was held that this right existed in the District of Columbia, and the dicta in this case extended the same doctrine to the case of the Territories. Up to the beginning of the present century it was almost unanimously considered

[blocks in formation]

that the wording of the first eight amendments made them limitations both upon the power which Congress possessed over the territory of the United States, and also over that more discretionary power which they had in the government of territory belonging to the United States. In 1903, however, it was decided, in Hawaii v. Mankichi,11 that the right of a trial by jury, and the other guarantees of the Bill of Rights, did not extend to the colonies of the United States. This right, however, was secured to Alaska by the treaty with Russia, which ceded this territory.175

The jury referred to is the common law jury of twelve members, and a unanimous vote is 1equired for a verdict.17 Questions of law in criminal trials in Federal courts are for the judge to decide.177

The locality in which a crime is alleged to have been committed determines the place of trial,178 but the provision for a trial in the State and district where the crime was committed of necessity cannot apply in cases of crimes committed on the high

seas,179

"The right of a speedy trial is necessarily relative. It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to a defendant. It does not preclude the rights of public justice. It cannot be claimed for one offense and prevent arrest for other offenses, and removal proceedings are but process for arrest-means of bringing a defendant to a trial.”1

180

The meaning of the term "an impartial jury" was discussed by the court in Reynolds v. United States. 181

"It is good ground for a challenge that a juror has formed an opinion as to the issue to be tried. The courts are not agreed as

[blocks in formation]

to the knowledge upon which the opinion must rest in order to render the juror incompetent, or whether the opinion must be accompanied by malice or ill-will; but all unite in holding that it must be founded on some evidence and be more than a mere impression, ***if hypothetical only, the partiality is not so manifest as to necessarily set the juror aside. Chief Justice Marshall, in Burr's trial, 1 Burr Trial, 416, states the rule to be that 'Light impressions, which may fairly be presumed to yield to the testimony that may be offered, which may leave the mind open to a fair consideration of the testimony, constitute no sufficient objection to a juror; but that those strong and deep impressions which close the mind against the testimony that may be offered in opposition to them, which will combat that testimony and resist its force, do constitute a sufficient objection to him.' The theory of the law is that a juror who has formed an opinion cannot be impartial. Every opinion which he may entertain need not necessarily have that effect. In these days of newspaper enterprise and universal education, every case of public interest is almost, as a matter of necessity, brought to the attention of all the intelligent people in the vicinity, and scarcely any one can be found among those best fitted for juror who has not some impression or some opinion in regard to its merits. It is clear, therefore, that upon the trial of the issue of fact raised. by a challenge for such a cause the court will practically be called upon to determine whether the nature and strength of the opinion formed are such as in law necessarily raise the presumption of partiality. The question thus presented is one of mixed law and fact, and to be tried, as far as the facts are concerned, like any other issue of that character, upon the evidence. The finding of the trial court upon that issue ought not to be set aside by a reviewing court, unless the error is manifest.”

§ 248. Nature and cause of the accusation.-A person accused of crime is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This information is contained. in the indictment which must set forth the offense with clearness and all necessary certainty to apprise the accused of the crime of which he stands charged; and every ingredient of which the offense is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged.

It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading that where the definition of an offense, whether it be at common law or by statute, includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the definition, but it must state the species-it must descend to particulars. The object of the indictment is, first, to furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense and avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same course; and, second, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. For this facts are to be stated, not conclusions of law alone. A crime is made up of acts and intent; and these must be set forth in the indictment, with reasonable particularity of time, place and circumstances.1 In indictments for treason an overt act of treason must be alleged.18

182

It is not required that the Government should furnish the accused with a copy of the indictment.18

$249. Witnesses and counsel.-The right of the accused to be confronted with the witnesses against him is absolute,185 with the following exceptions: dying declarations may be introduced, and where a witness at a previous trial is deceased,186 or is kept away by the defendant,187 evidence as to their testimony at such former trial may be introduced.

The compulsory process for obtaining witnesses for the defense may be at the expense of the United States if the defendant is too poor to bear the expense himself.188

The right of a prisoner to the assistance of counsel for his defense was a new and as yet imperfect right in England at the

[blocks in formation]

time of the adoption of the sixth amendment. It was first allowed in that country in cases of treason by act of seven William III, C. 3, and in other criminal cases by the acts of six and seven William IV, C. 114.

§ 250. Jury trials in civil cases.-The right to a trial by jury in common law cases, involving twenty dollars or upwards, has been held to extend to the territorial courts,1 189 and to the courts of the District of Columbia.190 Under the reasoning in Hawaii v. Mankichi,191 however, this would not seem to be the correct view. Trial by jury has never been introduced into the Philippines or Porto Rico."

192

By "common law" the framers of the Constitution meant what the Constitution of the United States denominated in the third article "law;" not merely suits which the common law recognized among its old and settled proceedings, but suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable remedies were administered; or where, as in the admiralty, a mixture of public law and of maritime law and equity were often found in the same suit. The term "common law" here includes all civil suits but those in equity or admiralty. It does not include admiralty suits; nor equity proceedings, nor did it include proceedings under the fugitive slave law.

"In civil causes in courts of equity and admiralty, juries do not intervene, and courts of equity use the trial by jury only in extraordinary cases to inform the conscience of the court. When, therefore, we find that the amendment requires that the right of trial by jury shall be preserved in suits at common law, the natural conclusion is that this distinction was present to the minds

[blocks in formation]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »