Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542 (1926)
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 272 U.S. 533, click here.
Salinger v. United States
No. 238
Argued October 21, 1926
Decided November 23, 1926
272 U.S. 542
ERROR TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Syllabus
1. The statutes which define and distribute federal appellate jurisdiction and make the existence of a constitutional question the test of the right to a review, as also of the court in which the review may be had, always have been construed as referring to a question having sufficient substance to deserve serious consideration, and not one which is so devoid of merit as to be fanciful or frivolous, or which is not open to discussion because settled by prior decisions. P. 544.
2. An indictment charging the offense of causing a letter to be delivered by mail in a designated district in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is triable in that district, though it shows that the letter was mailed elsewhere. Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224. P. 546.
3. The purpose of the guaranty of the right of confrontation in the 6th Amendment is to continue and preserve that right as it already existed, with its recognized exceptions, at common law. P. 548.
4. Admission in a criminal case of evidence, otherwise hearsay, but admissible at common law because of it relation to the defendant through his own acts and conduct, is not a departure from this guaranty. P. 547.
5. Withdrawal by the court from the jury of parts of an indictment unsupported by evidence is not an amendment of the indictment, and is not even remotely an infraction of the constitutional provision that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury." P. 548.
6. Where a writ of error which should have been taken from the Circuit Court of Appeals was allowed from this Court before the Jurisdictional Act of February 13, 1925, the case must be transferred to that court under the Act of September 14, 1922, which, although repealed by the Act of 1925, is to be applied, under the terms of the saving clause, to proceedings for the review of judgments rendered theretofore. P. 549.
Cause Transferred.
Error to a conviction in the District Court for a violation of § 215 of the Criminal Code which makes it a criminal offense to use the mail for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud.