Skip to main content
· 3/25/1895

Cochran & Sayre v. United States

Citations

  • 157 U.S. 286
  • 15 S. Ct. 628
  • 39 L. Ed. 704
  • 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2202

Syllabus

<p>In an indictment against tbe president and the assistant cashier of a national bank for making a false entry in a report, under Rev. Stat. § 5209, the report need not be described with technical accuracy; nor is it necessary to allege that the report in which the false entry was made was verified by the oath or affirmation of the president or cashier, or attested by the signature of the directors..</p> <p>In such an indictment the true test is, not whether it might possibly have been made .more certain, but whether it contains every element of the offence intended to be charged, and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and, in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offence, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction.</p> <p>Several objections to the admissibility of evidence considered and disposed of.</p> <p>A note whose payment is guaranteed- by a national bank is a liability of the bank which is required by law (Rev. Stat. § 5211) to be shown in the report to the Comptroller of the Currency.</p> <p>Some objections to the charge considered and disposed of.</p> <p>The defendants requested the court to charge the jury as follows: “You are further instructed that the defendants are presumed to be innocent until the contrary appears beyond a reasonable doubt, and that every reasonable doubt or presumption arising from the evidence must be construed in their favor.” The court refused to give this instruction, but instead thereof gave a carefully prepared definition of reasonable doubt, without referring to the presumption of innocence which attends an accused at every stage of the proceeding. Held, following Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 132, that this was error, as the defendants were entitled to an instruction upon the point of the presumption of innocence, if requested.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • defendant could face “liability in a civil action for negligence, but he could only be held criminally for an evil intent actually existing in his mind”
  • “The true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is ... whether it contains the elements of the offense to be charged_”
  • \Few indictments ... are so skilfully drawn as to be beyond the hypercriticism of astute counsel--few which might not be made more definite by additional allegations.\
  • “Few indictments ... are so skilfully drawn as to be beyond the hypercriticism of astute counsel — few which might not be made more definite by additional allegations.”
  • defendant could face ‘liability in a civil action for negligence, but he could only be held criminally for an evil intent actually existing in his mind’
  • “defendant could face ‘liability in a civil action for negligence, but he could only be held criminally for an evil intent actually existing in his mind’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.