Joseph P. Bradley

Name: Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court
Author: Joseph P. Bradley

Summary

“Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Joseph P. Bradley. It explores elements such as indictment, unlawful cohabitation and acquittal.

Quotes from Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court (Joseph P. Bradley)

Joseph P. Bradley, Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court

“ In the present case, it is true, the ground for the habeas corpus was, not the invalidity of an act of congress under which the defendant was indicted, but a second prosecution and trial for the same offense, contrary to an express provision of the constitution; in other words, a constitutional immunity of the defendant was violated by the second trial and judgment. It is difficult to see why a conviction and punishment under an unconstitutional law is more violative of a person's constitutional rights than an unconstitutional conviction and punishment under a valid law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley, Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court

“ And assuming them to be true, can it be doubted that the adultery charged in the second indictment was an incident and part of the unlawful cohabitation? We have no doubt of it. True, in the Case of Snow we held that it was not necessary to prove sexual intercourse in order to make out a case of unlawful cohabitation; that living together as man and wife was sufficient; but this was only because proof of sexual intercourse would have been merely cumulative evidence of the fact. Living together as man and wife is what we decided was meant by unlawful cohabitation under the statute. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley, Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court

“ As our object is simply to decide the case before us, and not to write a general treatise, we content ourselves, in addition to what has already been said, with simply announcing our conclusion, which is, that the conviction of the petitioner of the crime of unlawful cohabitation was a bar to his subsequent prosecution for the crime of adultery ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley, Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court

“ The court said: 'A conviction or acquittal upon one indictment is no bar to a subsequent conviction and sentence upon another, unless the evidence required to support a conviction upon one of them would have been sufficient to warrant a conviction upon the other. The test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense. A single act may be an offense against two statutes ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley, Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court

“ But be that as it may, it seems to us very clear that where, as in this case, a person has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, he cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. It may be contended that adultery is not an incident of unlawful cohabitation, because marriage of one of the parties must be strictly proved. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley, Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court

“ It is firmly established that if the court which renders a judgment has not jurisdiction to render it, either because the proceedings or the law under which they are taken are unconstitutional, or for any other reason, the judgment is void, and may be questioned collaterally, and a defendant who is imprisoned under and by virtue of it may be discharged from custody on habeas corpus. This was so decided in the cases of Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley, Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court

“ But where a conviction for a less crime cannot be had under an indictment for a greater which includes it, there it is plain that while an acquittal would not or might not be a bar, a conviction of the greater crime would involve the lesser also, and would be a bar ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley, Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court

“ In the Case of Parks there was an alleged misconstruction of a statute. We held that to be a mere error in law, the court having jurisdiction of the case. In the Cases of Lange and Snow there was a denial or invasion of a constitutional right. A party is entitled to a habeas corpus, not merely where the court is without jurisdiction of the cause, but where it has no constitutional authority or power to condemn the prisoner. ”

Joseph P. Bradley

Summary

Quotes from Ex parte Nielsen — Opinion of the Court (Joseph P. Bradley)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature