United States v. Wilson: Difference between revisions
Remove reflist and category on double jeopardy since this is not the Wilson case dealing with double jeopardy |
no source given for this claim |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
'''''United States v. Wilson''''', [[Case citation|32 U.S. 150]] (1833), was a case in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the [[US Mail]] in Pennsylvania and [[Capital punishment in the United States|sentenced to death]].<ref name=RMBohm>Bohm, Robert M., ''DeathQuest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States'', p25</ref> Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by [[Andrew Jackson]]. Wilson, however, refused the pardon. The [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] was thus asked to rule on the case.<ref name=RMBohm/> |
'''''United States v. Wilson''''', [[Case citation|32 U.S. 150]] (1833), was a case in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the [[US Mail]] in Pennsylvania and [[Capital punishment in the United States|sentenced to death]].<ref name=RMBohm>Bohm, Robert M., ''DeathQuest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States'', p25</ref> Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by [[Andrew Jackson]]. Wilson, however, refused the pardon. The [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] was thus asked to rule on the case.<ref name=RMBohm/> |
||
The decision was that if the prisoner does not accept the pardon, it is not in effect: "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him." |
The decision was that if the prisoner does not accept the pardon, it is not in effect: "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him."<ref>http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_1s29.html</ref> |
||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Revision as of 15:11, 31 August 2017
- Not to be confused with "United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (1975)", a case regarding double jeopardy on a directed verdict after jury conviction.
| United States v. Wilson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 18, 1833 Decided January 26, 1833 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Wilson |
| Citations | 32 U.S. 150 (more) 32 U.S. 7 Peters 150 (1833) |
| Holding | |
| A pardon cannot be recognized by a judge if it has not been brought judicially before the court by plea, motion, or otherwise. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Marshall |
United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150 (1833), was a case in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the US Mail in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death.[1] Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by Andrew Jackson. Wilson, however, refused the pardon. The Supreme Court was thus asked to rule on the case.[1]
The decision was that if the prisoner does not accept the pardon, it is not in effect: "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him."[2]
References
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
- ^ a b Bohm, Robert M., DeathQuest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States, p25
- ^ http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_1s29.html