United States v. DeWalt
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mulloney v. United States (1st Cir. 1935)
- Briggs v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY (Okla. 1950)
- United States v. Kelly (District Court, E.D. New York 1931)
- United States v. Etheridge (District Court, D. Oregon 1930)
- United States v. Hopkins (District Court, S.D. New York 1912)
- Fay v. Noia (Supreme Court of the United States 1963)
- United States v. Roberts (United States Court of Military Appeals 1956)
- Huffman v. Alexander (Or. 1952)
- United States v. Stovall (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1923)
- Ex parte Brede (District Court, E.D. New York 1922)
- Garnsey v. State (Okla. Crim. App. 1910)
- People v. McNulty (Cal. 1891)
- Medley (Supreme Court of the United States 1890)
- Wetzel v. Wiggins (Miss. 1956)
- Attorney General Ex Rel. O'Hara v. Montgomery (Mich. 1936)
- Sheridan v. United States (9th Cir. 1916)
- State v. Nichols (R.I. 1905)
- Stokes v. United States (5th Cir. 1894)
- United States v. Cadwallader (District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 1893)
- In re Claasen (Supreme Court of the United States 1891)
- Ex parte Van Vranken (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Virginia 1891)
- United States v. Cobb (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1890)
- United States v. Smith (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Virginia 1889)
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
delivered the opinion of the court.
DeWalt, the appellee, was tried and convicted, upon an information of the crime of embezzlement and making false entries as the president of a national bank, in violation of § 5209 of the Eevised Statutes, and sentenced and committed to the penitentiary for ten years. This section prescribes the punishment of imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years, which imprisonment may be ordered to be executed in a state jail or penitentiary. Eev. Stat. § 5541. Appellee was subsequently discharged on habeas corpus upon the ground that the crime in question was an infamous crime, for which he could not; under the Constitution, be held to answer on information, but only on presentment or indictment by a, grand- jury. From the order discharging him this appeal is prosecuted, and it is contended that a crime is not infamous which is not subject to the penalty of hard labor as part of the punishment of imprisonment.
This, however, was otherwise ruled in Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348, 352, where, this court held, speaking *394 through Mr. Justice Gray, “that at the present day imprisonment in a state prison or penitentiary, with or without hard ' labor, is an infamous punishment.”
That case is decisive of this, and the order appealed from ■ must be .
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.