Ex parte Schmidt
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. District Court of First Judicial Dist. (Mont. 1950)
- United States v. Olmstead (District Court, W.D. Washington 1925)
- United States v. Cobban (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana 1904)
- State v. Will (Iowa 1896)
- HOLA Community Partners v. SG Blocks, Inc. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2024)
- SG Blocks, Inc. v. HOLA Community Partners (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2024)
- United States v. Approximately $28,360.00 in U.S. Currency (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2021)
- (PC) Jones v. Arnette (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2021)
- People v. Breen (Cal. 1900)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
A person had been indicted for an offense, and that person moved the court, under section 995, Penal Code, to set aside the indictment on the ground that the names of all the witnesses examined before the grand jury had not been inserted at the foot of
Section 943, Penal Code, declares that the names of the witnesses examined before the grand jury, or whose depositions may have been read, must be inserted at the foot of the indictment, or indorsed thereon, before it is presented to the court; and by section 995 the failure to so insert or indorse the names of all the witnesses is made ground for setting aside the indictment. By section 925, no person except the district attorney and witnesses under examination are permitted to be present at the sessions of the grand jury. If, therefore, neither the members of the grand jury nor the district attorney could be called upon to state whether any witnesses were examined other than those whose names have been inserted or indorsed, a barren right to move to dismiss is given without the power to ascertain whether or not the statute has been complied with. Under our statute, the ' names of witnesses before the grand jury are not secrets to be undivulged, at least for the purpose herein referred to; because the moment an indictment is presented, that mordent the names should be a part of the record.
The petitioner is remanded and the writ is discharged.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.