· 1/21/1895

Sparf v. United States

Citations

156 U.S. 51
15 S. Ct. 273
39 L. Ed. 343
1895 U.S. LEXIS 2120

Syllabus

If one of two persons accused of having together committed the crime of murder makes a voluntary confession in the presence of the other, under such circumstances that he would naturally have contradicted it if he did not assent, the confession is admissible in evidence against both. If two persons are indicted and- tried jointly for murder, declarations of one made after the killing and in the absence of the other, tending to prove the guilt of both, are admissible in evidence against the one making the declarations, but not against the other. An objection to the admissibility of such evidence, made at the trial in the name of both defendants, on the general ground that it was irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent, furnishes, if the testimony be admitted, sufficient ground in case of conviction for bringing the case to this court, and warrants the reversal of the conviction of the defendant against whom it was not admissible. Confession of a person imprisoned and in irons, under an accusation of having committed a capital offence, are admissible in evidence against him, if they appear to have been voluntary, and not obtained by putting him in fear, or by promises. Section 1035 of the Revised Statutes does not authorize a jury in a criminal case to find the defendant guilty of a less offence than the one charged, unless the evidence justifies it; but it enables the jury, in case the defendant is not shown to be guilty of the particular crime charged, to find him guilty of a lesser offence necessarily included in the one charged, or of the attempt to commit the one charged, when the evidence permits that to be done. In the courts of the United States it- is the duty of the jury, in criminal cases, to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court, subject to the condition that by a general verdict a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particul

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1895 United States Supreme Court case

Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), or Sparf and Hansen v. United States,[1] was a United States Supreme Court case testing the admissibility of confessions by multiple defendants accused of the same crime, and the rights of juries.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sparf_v._United_States&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

On the night of January 13, 1884, on a voyage to Tahiti , the second mate, a man called Maurice Fitzgerald, of the Hesper was found to be missing. It was believed that he had been killed and his body thrown overboard. The ship's captain, Sodergren, suspected three men, the crew members St. Clair, Hansen, and Sparf, of being participants in the murder. Sodergren kept the three suspects in holding until they arrived in Tahiti, where they were taken ashore by the United States consul at that island and were subsequently sent, with others, to San Francisco , on the vessel Tropic Bird.[1] There they were tried for the murder of Fitzgerald and convicted.

Decision

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sparf_v._United_States&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Decision")
]

The Fuller Court .

The Court issued its decision on January 21, 1895 by a 5-4 vote, with Justice Harlan giving the majority opinion.

Confessions with multiple defendants

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sparf_v._United_States&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Confessions with multiple defendants")
]

The court held that if one of two persons, accused of having together committed the crime of murder, makes a voluntary confession in the presence of the other, without threat or coercion, the confession is admissible in evidence against both. However, declarations of one accomplice after the killing made in the absence of the other implicating the guilt of both are admissible in evidence only against the one making the declarations, not against the other.

Rights of juries

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sparf_v._United_States&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Rights of juries")
]

Sparf v. United States ended the 100-years old custom of informing the jury of their right to decide both statutory law and facts. Since then, judges do not inform juries of their power to nullify the case statute, although that power is universally acknowledged.

Justice Harlan, speaking for the majority, quoted Kane v. Com., 1 Cr. Law Mag. 51, 56:

"'... We must hold, to enable us to avoid the inconsistency, that, subject to the qualification that all acquittals are final, the law in criminal cases is to be determined by the court. In this way we have our liberties and rights determined, not by an irresponsible, but by a responsible, tribunal; not by a tribunal ignorant of the law, but by a tribunal trained to and disciplined by the law; not by an irreversible tribunal, but by a reversible tribunal; not by a tribunal which makes its own law, but by a tribunal that obeys the law as made. In this way we maintain two fundamental maxims. The first is that, while juries answer facts, the court answers the laws. The second, which is still more important, is ‘Nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege.’ Unless there is a violation of law preannounced, and this by a constant and responsible tribunal, there is no crime, and can be no punishment.' We must therefore accept that the jury are no more judges of law in criminal than in civil cases, with the qualification that, owing to the peculiar doctrine of autrefois acquit, a criminal acquittal by a jury cannot be overhauled by the court.’"

Sparf remains the last direct opinion of the Court on jury nullification .

Justice Gray spoke for those dissenting, saying "It is universally conceded that a verdict of acquittal, although rendered against the instructions of the judge, is final, and cannot be set aside; and consequently that the jury have the legal power to decide for themselves the law involved in the general issues of guilty or not guilty."

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sparf_v._United_States&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: References")
]

1 2 Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sparf_v._United_States&action=edit&section=7 "Edit section: External links")
]

Works related to Sparf v. United States at Wikisource
Text of Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sparf_v._United_States&oldid=1351939206 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Sparf v. United States

1 language Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

Judges: Harlan, Brewer, Gray, Jackson, Brown, Shiras

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.