Summary

United States v. Dawson (56 U.S. 467…

The truth is, that the continued existence and identity of the metaphysical ens, called district, territory, state, or of that other called the court, has nothing to do with the question. If it has, the right guaranteed amounts to nothing. The trial is to be in the district where the offence was committed, in order that the party may have, if not the reality, at least the possibility or fiction of a right to a jury of the vicinage. A constitutional provision, without a reason for it, would be a monster. The right is one that continues to the trial; it is, indeed, a right of the trial.
Source: Wikisource

United States v. Dawson (56 U.S. 467…

The Constitution, in art. 3, sec. 2, provides: 'The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State, where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.'
This provision authorized the act of Congress, which prescribed that the trial of the crime charged in the indictment as committed in the Indian country, out of the limits of any State, should be had in the Circuit Court of Arkansas.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature