Ex parte Johnson

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

Ex parte Johnson

13 F. Cas. 719, 1 Wash. C. C. 47

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 15, 1803

DocketCase No. 7,367

StatusPublished

This text of 13 F. Cas. 719 (Ex parte Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex parte Johnson, 13 F. Cas. 719, 1 Wash. C. C. 47 (circtdpa 1803).

Pincite

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

I have no doubt but that Johnson was sent to the grand jury from the best motives on the part of the attorney, but I cannot say that I approve of the practice, and would not have permitted it, had the subject been mentioned in court. As the indictment, when found, amounts to nothing more than calling upon the accused to answer, it is highly improper that the grand jury in their retirement, and without the legal aid of the court as to what is and what is not proper testimony, should in fact decide the cause, which they do if they through mistake of the law should not find the bill. The accused having the benefit of a speedy, candid, and open trial, under the direction of the court, where all his witnesses are heard, can suffer no inconvenience from this rule. If therefore the attorney chose to make use of the' defendant's witness, and marked him on the indictment as a witness for the prosecution, he must be paid by the United States.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

I have no doubt but that Johnson was sent to the grand jury from the best motives on the part of the attorney, but I cannot say that I approve of the practice, and would not have permitted it, had the subject been mentioned in court. As the indictment, when found, amounts to nothing more than calling upon the accused to answer, it is highly improper that the grand jury in their retirement, and without the legal aid of the court as to what is and what is not proper testimony, should in fact decide the cause, which they do if they through mistake of the law should not find the bill. The accused having the benefit of a speedy, candid, and open trial, under the direction of the court, where all his witnesses are heard, can suffer no inconvenience from this rule. If therefore the attorney chose to make use of the' defendant's witness, and marked him on the indictment as a witness for the prosecution, he must be paid by the United States.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F. Cas. 719, 1 Wash. C. C. 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-johnson-circtdpa-1803.