People v. Tinder & Smith
Citations
- 19 Cal. 539
Syllabus
<p>Admission to bail in capital cases, where the proof is evident or the presumption great, may be made, under our Constitution, (Art. I, sec. 5) matter of discretion, and may be forbidden by legislation. In all other cases the admission to bail is a right of the accused which no Judge or Court can properly refuse.</p> <p>The Criminal Practice Act, (Secs. 509, 510) so far as it makes the admission to bail matter of discretion in all cases where the punishment is death, unless the proof is evident or the presumption great, conflicts with the Constitution as above.</p> <p>An indictment, under our Criminal Practice Act, is something more than a mere accusation based upon probable cause. It is an accusation based upon legal testimony of a direct and positive character, and is the concurring judgment of at least twelve of the grand jurors that, upon the evidence presented to them, the defendant is guilty,</p> <p>A grand jury ought to find an indictment when all the evidence before them, taken together, is such as in their judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury ; and if such evidence, unexplained or uncontradicted, would not warrant such conviction, they ought not to find an indictment.</p> <p>An indictment for a capital oifense furnishes of itself a presumption of the guilt of the defendant too great to entitle him to bail as matter of right under the Constitution, or as matter of discretion under the legislation of the State. It creates a presumption of guilt for all purposes except tlie trial before a petit jury.</p> <p>The finding of the grand jury by the indictment cannot be reviewed on the application for bail in capital cases- The statute makes no provision for preserving the testimony taken before the jury, and impliedly prohibits the disclosure of such testimony, except in certain cases specially named.</p> <p>Nor can affidavits or oral testimony as to the guilt or innocence of the accused be received to repel the
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[A]n indictment for a capital offense does of itself furnish a presumption of the guilt of the defendant too great to entitle him to bail as a matter of right under the Constitution, or as a matter of discretion under the legislation of the State.”
- “An indictment for a capital offense furnishes of itself a presumption of the guilt of the defendant too great to entitle him to bail as matter of right under the 30 USA V. PEREZ-GARCIA Constitution, or as matter of discretion under the legislation of the State.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Field
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Lorenson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1950-04-04· cited 183×
- Greenberg v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1942-01-29· cited 119×
- Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1960-08-05· cited 80×
- Cummiskey v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1992-11-23· cited 70×
- People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2000-02-18· cited 44×
- Daily Journal Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1999-07-22· cited 30×
- Ex parte McDanielSupreme Court of Florida· 1923-07-11· cited 26×
- United States v. Jesus Perez GarciaNinth Circuit· 2024-03-18· cited 26×
- Taglianetti v. FontaineSupreme Court of Rhode Island· 1969-05-28· cited 23×
- State v. Second Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court· 1970-07-01· cited 23×
- State v. NeislerSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1994-02-28· cited 19×
- In re BallSupreme Court of Kansas· 1920-03-23· cited 15×
- In Re BrightCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1993-03-08· cited 12×
- United States v. Jaylan Miles Ra Shawn GoreSixth Circuit· 2024-10-08· cited 12×
- State v. KauffmanSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1906-06-23· cited 11×
- Goldstein v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 2008-11-17· cited 10×
- Oregon Railway & Navigation Co. v. Oregon Real Estate Co.Oregon Supreme Court· 1882-10-15· cited 9×
- People v. BrinkmanNew York County Courts· 1953-10-16· cited 8×
- People v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF ADAMSSupreme Court of Colorado· 1974-12-16· cited 7×
- State ex rel. West v. CollinsNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1901-12-12· cited 7×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Ex parte TayloeNew York Supreme Court· 1825-10-15· cited 28×
- Territory v. BenoitSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1810-07-01· cited 11×
- Lumm v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1852-05-25· cited 10×
- Yarbrough v. StateTexas Supreme Court· 1847-12-15· cited 9×
- People v. BarbourCalifornia Supreme Court· 1858-07-01· cited 6×
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.