United States v. DeWalt

128 U.S. 393, 9 S. Ct. 111, 32 L. Ed. 485, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2226
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 19, 1888
Docket81
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 128 U.S. 393 (United States v. DeWalt) 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
United States v. DeWalt, 128 U.S. 393, 9 S. Ct. 111, 32 L. Ed. 485, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2226 (1888).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

DeWalt, the appellee, was tried and convicted, upon an information of the crime of embezzlement and making false entries as the president of a national bank, in violation of § 5209 of the Eevised Statutes, and sentenced and committed to the penitentiary for ten years. This section prescribes the punishment of imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years, which imprisonment may be ordered to be executed in a state jail or penitentiary. Eev. Stat. § 5541. Appellee was subsequently discharged on habeas corpus upon the ground that the crime in question was an infamous crime, for which he could not; under the Constitution, be held to answer on information, but only on presentment or indictment by a, grand- jury. From the order discharging him this appeal is prosecuted, and it is contended that a crime is not infamous which is not subject to the penalty of hard labor as part of the punishment of imprisonment.

This, however, was otherwise ruled in Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348, 352, where, this court held, speaking *394 through Mr. Justice Gray, “that at the present day imprisonment in a state prison or penitentiary, with or without hard ' labor, is an infamous punishment.”

That case is decisive of this, and the order appealed from ■ must be .

Affirmed.

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

Related

Fay v. Noia
372 U.S. 391 (Supreme Court, 1963)
United States v. Roberts
7 C.M.A. 322 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1956)
Wetzel v. Wiggins
85 So. 2d 469 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1956)
Huffman v. Alexander
253 P.2d 289 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1952)
Briggs v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY
1950 OK 105 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1950)
Attorney General Ex Rel. O'Hara v. Montgomery
267 N.W. 550 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)
Mulloney v. United States
79 F.2d 566 (First Circuit, 1935)
United States v. Kelly
51 F.2d 263 (E.D. New York, 1931)
United States v. Etheridge
41 F.2d 762 (D. Oregon, 1930)
United States v. Stovall
289 F. 123 (D. Arizona, 1923)
Falconi v. United States
280 F. 766 (Sixth Circuit, 1922)
Ex parte Brede
279 F. 147 (E.D. New York, 1922)
State v. Young
1922 OK CR 7 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1922)
Sheridan v. United States
236 F. 305 (Ninth Circuit, 1916)
United States v. Hopkins
228 F. 173 (S.D. New York, 1912)
Garnsey v. State
1910 OK CR 248 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1910)
State v. Nichols
60 A. 763 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1905)
Stokes v. United States
60 F. 597 (Fifth Circuit, 1894)
United States v. Cadwallader
59 F. 677 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1893)
People v. McNulty
28 P. 816 (California Supreme Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 U.S. 393, 9 S. Ct. 111, 32 L. Ed. 485, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dewalt-scotus-1888.