United States v. Hamilton
a withUnited States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 17 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant charged with treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned under a warrant of committal issued by a district court judge.[1] The Judiciary Act of 1789 provided that "upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law."[2] Ordinarily, habeas corpus was used to release prisoners held by the executive authority, but not those committed under a court order.[3] Hamilton's attorney argued that the district court judge did not hold a hearing before issuing the warrant for his commitment to jail, and that the affidavits alleging treasonous activity were weak, while the government contended that the Judiciary Act did not grant the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to review the district court's decision unless there was new information or misconduct. The Supreme Court granted bail, without addressing the arguments of either attorney.[4] See alsoReferences
External links
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia