Smith v. United States

94 U.S. 97, 24 L. Ed. 32, 4 Otto 97, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1836
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 27, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by266 cases

This text of 94 U.S. 97 (Smith 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
Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97, 24 L. Ed. 32, 4 Otto 97, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1836 (1876).

Opinion

Mr. Chiee Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is clearly within our discretion to refuse to hear a criminal case in error, unless the convicted party, suing out the writ, is where he can be made to respond to any judgment we may render. In this case it is- admitted that the plaintiff in error has. escaped, and is not within the control of the court below, either actually, by being in custody, or constructively, by being out on bail. If we affirm the judgment, he- is not likely to appear to submit to his sentence. If we reverse it and order a new trial, he will appear or not, as he may consider most for his interest. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to hear and decide what may prove to be only a moot case.

This cause was docketed here Dec. 29, 1870. In due time a brief was filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and the cause has been regularly continued at every term since, no one appearing here in person to represent the plaintiff. At this term we dismissed the writ, on motion of the United States, for want of prosecution, but have since reinstated it on motion of the counsel for the plaintiff in error, wbp now moves to have it set down for argument. This motion we deny, and order *98 that, unless the plaintiff in error submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court below on or before the first day of our next term, the cause be left off the docket after that time. The People v. Genet, 59 N. Y. 80; Leftwich's Case, 20 Gratt. 723; Commonwealth v. Andrews, 97 Mass. 544; see also 31 Me. 592.

Motion to set down the case for argument denied.

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

Related

J. Torre-Gonzalez v. PPB
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
United States v. Steven Emery
18 F.4th 585 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)
People v. Sanabria
2021 IL App (1st) 190827 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2021)
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Williams
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2018
People v. Marroquin CA2/5
California Court of Appeal, 2015
Couey v. Atkins
355 P.3d 866 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2015)
Matter of Allain v. Oriola-Allain
123 A.D.3d 138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Demond Markee Lewis v. Commonwealth of Virginia
762 S.E.2d 786 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2014)
Linda Mastro v. James Rigby, Jr.
764 F.3d 1090 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Cedeno v. Conway
724 F. Supp. 2d 373 (W.D. New York, 2010)
People v. Brown
250 P.3d 679 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2010)
Polanski v. Superior Court
180 Cal. App. 4th 507 (California Court of Appeal, 2009)
State v. RAIBURN
212 P.3d 1029 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2009)
Sun v. Holder
Ninth Circuit, 2009
United States v. Zedner
555 F.3d 68 (Second Circuit, 2008)
People v. Taveras
885 N.E.2d 181 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
State v. Raiburn
171 P.3d 654 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2007)
United States v. Ladner
226 F. App'x 250 (Third Circuit, 2007)
United States v. $6,976,934.65 Plus Interest
478 F. Supp. 2d 30 (District of Columbia, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 U.S. 97, 24 L. Ed. 32, 4 Otto 97, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-united-states-scotus-1876.