Lovejoy v. United States

Supreme Court

Lovejoy v. United States

128 U.S. 171, 9 S. Ct. 57, 32 L. Ed. 389, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2206

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 29, 1888

Docket34

StatusPublished

Cited by63 cases

This text of 128 U.S. 171 (Lovejoy v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lovejoy v. United States, 128 U.S. 171, 9 S. Ct. 57, 32 L. Ed. 389, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2206 (1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice Gbat,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill of exceptions presents two questions, neither of which requires extended discussion.

*173 1. The act of June 30, 1879, c. 52, § 2, (21 Stat. 43,) which provides that (unless the judge orders the names of jurors to be drawn from the boxes used by the state authorities) all jurors, “ including those summoned during the session of the court,” shall be publicly drawn from a box containing not less than three hundred names, placed therein by the clerk and a commissioner appointed for the purpose — while it expressly repeals certain sections of the Revised Statutes, respecting the selection, qualifications and oath of jurors- — does not touch the power of the court, whenever, at the time of forming a jury to try a particular case, the panel of jurors previously summoned according to law is found for any reason to have been exhausted, to call in talesmen from the bystanders to suppljr the deficiency; and does not. eith'er expressly or by implication, repeal § 804 of the Revised Statutes, by' which, “ when, from challenges or otherwise, there is not a petit jury to determine any civil or criminal cause, the marshal or his deputy shall, by order of the court in which such defect of jurors happens, return jurymen from the bystanders sufficient to .complete the panel.” 3 Bl. Com. 364, 365; 4 Bl. Com. 354; United States v. Rose, 6 Fed. Rep. 136; Clawson v. United States, 114 U. S. 477, 487.

' 2. It is established' by repeated decisions that a court of the United States, in submitting a case to the jury, may at its discretion express its opinion upon the facts, and that- such an opinion is not reviewable on error, so long as no rule of law is incorrectly stated and all matters of fact are ultimately submitted to the determination of th^ jury. The charge of the Circuit Court in the present case was clearly within the rule. Rucker v. Wheeler, 127 U. S. 85, 93, and cases cited.

Judgment, ajjmned.

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

Me. Justice Gbat,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill of exceptions presents two questions, neither of which requires extended discussion.

*173 1. The act of June 30, 1879, c. 52, § 2, (21 Stat. 43,) which provides that (unless the judge orders the names of jurors to be drawn from the boxes used by the state authorities) all jurors, “ including those summoned during the session of the court,” shall be publicly drawn from a box containing not less than three hundred names, placed therein by the clerk and a commissioner appointed for the purpose — while it expressly repeals certain sections of the Revised Statutes, respecting the selection, qualifications and oath of jurors- — does not touch the power of the court, whenever, at the time of forming a jury to try a particular case, the panel of jurors previously summoned according to law is found for any reason to have been exhausted, to call in talesmen from the bystanders to suppljr the deficiency; and does not. eith'er expressly or by implication, repeal § 804 of the Revised Statutes, by' which, “ when, from challenges or otherwise, there is not a petit jury to determine any civil or criminal cause, the marshal or his deputy shall, by order of the court in which such defect of jurors happens, return jurymen from the bystanders sufficient to .complete the panel.” 3 Bl. Com. 364, 365; 4 Bl. Com. 354; United States v. Rose, 6 Fed. Rep. 136; Clawson v. United States, 114 U. S. 477, 487.

' 2. It is established' by repeated decisions that a court of the United States, in submitting a case to the jury, may at its discretion express its opinion upon the facts, and that- such an opinion is not reviewable on error, so long as no rule of law is incorrectly stated and all matters of fact are ultimately submitted to the determination of th^ jury. The charge of the Circuit Court in the present case was clearly within the rule. Rucker v. Wheeler, 127 U. S. 85, 93, and cases cited.

Judgment, ajjmned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 U.S. 171, 9 S. Ct. 57, 32 L. Ed. 389, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovejoy-v-united-states-scotus-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack