Summary

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Smith v. United States (360 U.S. 1…

The Government claims, however, that whether a specific kidnapping constitutes a capital offense requires examination of the evidence to determine whether the victim was released harmed or unharmed; in other words, that the statute creates two offenses: kidnapping without harm, which is punishable by a term of years, and kidnapping with harm, which is punishable by death. Further, the Government contends that the mere filing of an information by the United States Attorney eliminated the capital element of the crime.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Smith v. United States (360 U.S. 1…

But the substantial safeguards to those charged with serious crimes cannot be eradicated under the guise of technical departures from the rules. The use of indictments in all cases warranting serious punishment was the rule at common law. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 5 S.Ct. 935, 29 L.Ed. 89; Mackin v. United States, 117 U.S. 348, 6 S.Ct. 777, 29 L.Ed. 909. The Fifth Amendment made the rule mandatory in federal prosecutions in recognition of the fact that the intervention of a grand jury was a substantial safeguard against oppressive and arbitrary proceedings.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Smith v. United States (360 U.S. 1…

It is urged that this result will fail to protect substantial rights of defendants in other cases. We see no merit in that contention, particularly where the opposite conclusion would deprive defendants of the protection of a grand jury indictment as required by the Constitution and Rule 7 (a) . Under our holding, there is no reason to believe that a defendant in a case such as this would be surprised on his trial by any possible trickery of the prosecution.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature