Bartell v. United States
Citations
- 227 U.S. 427
- 33 S. Ct. 383
- 57 L. Ed. 583
- 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2315
Syllabus
<p>An indictment to be good under the Constitution and laws of the United States must advise the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation sufficiently to enable him to meet the accusation and-prepare for trial and so that, after judgment, he may be able to plead the record and judgment in bar of further prosecution for the sanie offense.</p> <p>While ordinarily documents essentia! to the charge of crime must be sufficiently described to make known the contents thereof, matter too obscene or indecent to be spread on the record may be referred to in a manner sufficient to identify it and advise the accused of the document intended without setting forth its contents; and so held .as to an indictment under § 3893 Rev. Stat. for sending obscene matter through the mails.</p> <p>The accused may demand a bill of particulars if the reference in the indictment to a letter too obscene to be published does not sufficiently identify it, and in the absence of such demand a detailed reference is sufficient.</p> <p>The accused is entitled to resort to parol evidence on a prosecutioh for sending obscene matter through the mail to show that the letter on which the indictment is based had been the subject-matter of a former prosecution, and therefore if the letter is too obscene to be spread on the record it is sufficient if a reference is made thereto in such detail that it may be identified.'</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- use of mails to defraud
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Day
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
90 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1946-06-10· cited 7,845×
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1957-06-24· cited 3,255×
- Russell v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1962-05-21· cited 1,715×
- Ginsberg v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1968-06-03· cited 1,224×
- United States v. PetrilloSupreme Court· 1947-06-23· cited 896×
- Wong Tai v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1927-01-03· cited 581×
- United States v. John A. KramerSeventh Circuit· 1983-11-07· cited 113×
- Monroe v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1956-04-30· cited 98×
- United States v. Mario E. IndoratoFirst Circuit· 1980-08-21· cited 87×
- Short v. United StatesFourth Circuit· 1937-08-06· cited 82×
- Isadore Blumenfield v. United States of America, (Two Cases). Monte Perkins v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1960-11-15· cited 69×
- Cowan v. StateNebraska Supreme Court· 1942-01-30· cited 60×
- United States v. Thomas M. HaasFifth Circuit· 1978-11-06· cited 59×
- United States v. LurosN.D. Iowa· 1965-06-29· cited 54×
- Myers v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1926-10-15· cited 52×
- United States v. CrummerTenth Circuit· 1945-11-02· cited 50×
- Olmstead v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1927-05-09· cited 47×
- Frankfort Distilleries, Inc. v. United StatesTenth Circuit· 1944-11-13· cited 43×
- State v. MartinezNebraska Supreme Court· 1996-07-12· cited 41×
- Jaquith v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1954-06-04· cited 41×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Rosen v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1896-01-27· cited 414×
- Dunbar v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1895-01-28· cited 224×
- United States v. BennettU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1879-05-31· cited 46×
- United States v. ClaflinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1875-11-05· cited 14×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.