|
The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are ''United States v. Simms'' (1803), ''United States v. More'' (1805), ''Ex parte Bollman'' (1807), ''United States v. Hudson'' (1812), ''Cohens v. Virginia'' (1821), ''United States v. Perez'' (1824), ''Worcester v. Georgia'' (1832), and ''United States v. Wilson'' (1833). During Marshall's tenure, the Supreme Court had no general appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases. The Court could review criminal convictions from the state courts, but not the lower federal courts, via writs of error. It only did so twice. The Court could hear original habeas petitions, but disclaimed the authority to grant the writ post-conviction unless the sentence had already been completed. Thus, the majority of the Marshall Court's opinions on criminal law were issued in response to questions certified by divided panels of the circuit courts by a certificate of division. Most of the Marshall Court's criminal opinions involved defining the elements of federal crimes. Criminal statutes considered by the Court during this period involved assimilative crimes, counterfeiting, embargoes, insurance fraud, piracy, and slave trading. But, the Court twice disclaimed the authority to define common law crimes not proscribed by Congressional statute. The Marshall Court also issued important opinions regarding criminal procedure. Although the Court did not explicitly cite or quote constitutional provisions, its opinions remain influential in interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and venue provision of Article Three. The Court also laid down the common law rules of evidence in federal courts, including the hearsay exception for party admissions and the narrowing of the best evidence rule. ==Background== Under the Articles of Confederation, there were no general federal courts or crimes.〔Kurland, 1996, at 21–25.〕〔Rossman, 1990, at 550.〕 Although the Articles authorized a federal court to punish "piracies and felonies committed on the high seas,"〔 of 1781, art. IX, para. 1.〕 and the Congress of the Confederation in 1775 created the Court of Appeals in Prize Cases,〔〔 (1977).〕 Congress soon devolved this power to the states.〔 Rather than creating additional crimes, the Congress merely recommended to the states that they criminalize acts like piracy and counterfeiting.〔 Criminal law was considered in the framing of the Constitution. In addition to the criminal procedure provisions of Article Three, the Constitutional Convention discussed piracy, crimes against the law of nations, treason, and counterfeiting.〔Kurland, 1996, at 25–53.〕 As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 21, a "most palpable defect of the subsisting Confederation, is the total want of a to its laws. The United States, as now composed, have no powers to exact obedience, or punish disobedience to their resolutions . . . ."〔, at 138 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).〕 One of the first statutes passed by the First Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, divided original jurisdiction for the trial of federal crimes between the district courts and the circuit courts. The district courts were given jurisdiction over all federal crimes "where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted."〔Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 9, 1 Stat. 73, 76–77.〕 The circuit courts were given concurrent jurisdiction over these crimes, and exclusive jurisdiction over all other federal crimes.〔Judiciary Act of 1789, § 11, 1 Stat. 73, 78–79.〕 The circuit courts also exercised appellate jurisdiction over the district courts,〔 but only in civil cases.〔Judiciary Act of 1789, § 22, 1 Stat. 73, 84–85.〕 In capital cases, the Act provided that "the trial shall be had in the county where the offence, was committed, or where that cannot be done without great inconvenience, twelve petit jurors at least shall be summoned from thence."〔Judiciary Act of 1789, § 29, 1 Stat. 73, 88.〕 "No other procedural provisions were included, probably because the legislators were simultaneously considering amendments which would provide such security."〔, 1985, at 6.〕 The Act of 1789 also placed the responsibility for prosecuting federal crimes in the United States Attorney for each federal judicial district. The Act provided that "there shall be appointed in each district" a "person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States in such district, who shall be sworn or affirmed to the faithful execution of his office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute in such district all delinquents for crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States."〔Judiciary Act of 1789, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92–93.〕 The Act authorized judges, justices, justices of the peace, and magistrates to issue arrest warrants.〔Judiciary Act of 1789, § 33, 1 Stat. 73, 91–92.〕 The Act provided a right to bail in non-capital cases, and authorized bail in capital cases—by the district courts, circuit courts, and Supreme Court, or any individual judge of them—issued on an "exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law."〔 The 1789 act did not create federal prisons, but it did provide for the imprisonment of federal prisoners (presumably in state prisons) "at the expense of the United States."〔 Many of the substantive federal crimes during this period were created by two omnibus pieces of legislation: the Crimes Act of 1790 (authored and introduced by Senator and future Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth) and the Crimes Act of 1825 (authored by Justice Joseph Story and introduced by Representative Daniel Webster). Congress also passed a variety of single-subject criminal statutes, which were not centrally codified in any official publication. Between 1790 and 1797, only 143〔 or 147〔 criminal cases were brought in the circuit courts, and 56 of those cases were brought in the Pennsylvania circuit court concerning the Whiskey Rebellion.〔Rossman, 1990, at 560.〕〔Kurland, 1996, at 59.〕 And, between 1790 and 1801, only 426 criminal cases were brought in all federal courts (the district courts and the circuit courts combined).〔Kurland, 1996, at 59 n.209.〕 Between 1801 and 1828, a total of 2,718 criminal indictments were returned in the circuit courts: 596 resulted in guilty verdicts by juries; 479, not guilty verdicts by juries; 902, nolle prosequi; and 741, other (either no disposition recorded, abated, quashed, discharged, discontinued, or prison break).〔, 1985, at 46–47.〕 Prior to Chief Justice Marshall's tenure, the Supreme Court had heard only two criminal cases—both by prerogative writ. First, in ''United States v. Hamilton'' (1795), the Court granted bail to a capital defendant charged with treason—as it was authorized to do by § 33 of the Judiciary Act of 1789〔 and § 4 of the Judiciary Act of 1793〔Judiciary Act of 1793, § 4, 1 Stat. 333, 334.〕—on an original writ of habeas corpus.〔United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 17 (1795).〕 The greater portion of the decision was dedicated to the Court's refusal to order the case tried by a special circuit court, as was provided for by § 3 of the Judiciary Act of 1793.〔Judiciary Act of 1793, § 3, 1 Stat. 333, 334.〕 Second, in ''United States v. Lawrence'' (1795), the Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a district judge to order the arrest of a deserter of the French navy, as the French government argued to be required by the consular convention between the United States and France.〔United States v. Lawrence, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 42 (1795).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Criminal law in the Marshall Court」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|