Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15 (1919)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 251 U.S. 1, click here.

Stroud v. United States

No. 276

Argued October 22, 1919
Decided November 24, 1919
251 U.S. 15

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Syllabus

A verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment, under an indictment charging murder in the first degree, is a conviction of murder in the first degree, and no less so because the jury adds "without capital punishment," as permitted by § 330 of the Criminal Code. P. 17.

And when a sentence to life imprisonment, based on such a verdict, is reversed upon the defendant’s application (the mandate calling for further proceedings), he is not placed twice in jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment when tried again under the same indictment, found guilty as charged, but without qualification as to punishment, and sentenced to be hanged. Id.

Motions for change of venue and to quash the jury panel in a capital case because of alleged local prejudice and of statements made to the district judge by counsel for the government and of the judge’s comments upon them in the presence of the prospective jurors are addressed to the discretion of the judge. P. 18.

Error in overruling a challenge for cause made by the defendant in a capital case is not ground for reversal if he excluded the objectionable juror by a peremptory challenge, and was permitted to exercise, in addition, more peremptory challenges than the statute allowed, the record not showing that any juror who sat upon the trial was objectionable in fact. P. 20.

A person committed a homicide while a prisoner in a penitentiary, and afterwards, while still so incarcerated, voluntarily wrote letters which, under the practice and discipline of the institution, without threat or coercion, were turned over to the warden, who furnished them to the United States attorney. Held that the use of the letter in the prosecution for the homicide was not violative of the constitutional provisions against compelling testimony from an accused and against unreasonable searches and seizures. P. 21.

Affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion. See also post,380.