Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Smith v. United States
94 U.S. 97
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1876-11-27
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- providing that the Supreme Court has the discretion to refuse to hear a criminal case if the defendant has escaped from custody
- announcing that court considered it within its “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”
- dismissing fugitive's criminal appeal because he was not "where he [could] be made to respond to any judgment we may render"
- affirming dismissal of FOIA request related to criminal sentence appellant was evading by remaining in Panama
- giving a fugitive until the start of the next term to surrender or face dismissal
- removing case from docket upon discovery that petitioner had escaped from custody
- refusing to hear case of escaped defendant who remained at large
- “[U]nless the plaintiff in error submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court below . . . , the cause [will] be left off the docket.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Smith v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 268 opinions
Headnotes
- Criminal Law & Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Fugitive Disentitlement An appellate court has discretion to refuse to hear a criminal case in error where the convicted party suing out the writ 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, because under such circumstances the court is not inclined to hear and decide what may prove to be only a moot case.
- Criminal Law & Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Fugitive Disentitlement Where a plaintiff in error in a criminal case has escaped and remains outside the jurisdiction of the court below, the appellate court may deny a motion to set the cause down for argument and order that, unless the plaintiff in error submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court below by a date certain, the cause be left off the docket after that time.
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.