Smith v. United States
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Reichelderfer v. Holmes County Jail N.D. Ohio
- 2025United States v. Bardakova 2d Cir.
- 2025Paris v. Brown 9th Cir.
- 2024John Edward Anderson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Ky.
- 2024United States v. Marietta Terabelian 9th Cir.
- 2023United States v. Jacquot 5th Cir.
- 2023J. Torre-Gonzalez v. PPB Pa. Commw. Ct.
- 2022Sills v. State of Oregon Or.
- 2021Johanna Maria Vibe Ener v. Pedro Antonio Martin 11th Cir.
- 2021Edil Galeas Figueroa v. Attorney General United States 3rd Cir.
Cites 1 case
- People v. Genet
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Smith v. United States.
Attorneys
- Mr. John J. McGrilvra for the plaintiff in error.
- Mr. Solicitor-Greneral Phillips, contra.
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 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.