Brown v. United States
171 U.S. 631 (1898)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Brown v. United States, 171 U.S. 631 (1898)

Brown v. United States

Nos. 249-250

Submitted April 25, 1898

Decided October 24, 1898

171 U.S. 631

Syllabus

This Court has no appellate jurisdiction of capital cases from the United States court from the Northern District of the Indian Territory, such appellate jurisdiction being vested exclusively in the United States Court of Appeals in the Indian Territory.

Cyrus A. Brown, plaintiff in error in case No. 249, was indicted in the United States Court for the Northern District of the Indian Territory, charged with the crime of murder, which indictment was filed in the United States Court for the Indian Territory, Northern District, sitting at Muscogee, on the 10th day of December, A.D. 1896.

On the 17th day of December, A.D. 1897, he was convicted of the crime of murder in said court, and the judgment of the court sentencing him to death was made on the 24th day of December, A.D. 1897. On the 1st day of February, A.D. 1898, the plaintiff in error filed a petition in said court for a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States, and filed an assignment of errors. On February 8, A.D. 1898, a writ of error was allowed in said cause, and on the same day a citation was issued in said cause, service of which was acknowledged on the 16th day of February, A.D. 1898. Pursuant to the writ of error in said cause, a transcript of the record in said cause was filed in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States on the 23d day of February, A.D. 1898. The government has filed its motion to

Page 171 U. S. 632

dismiss the writ of error in said cause for the reason that the Supreme Court of the United States has no jurisdiction under the law to entertain said writ of error nor to pass upon any of the alleged errors in said record, because said court has no appellate jurisdiction of said cause.

George Curley, alias George Cully, plaintiff in error in case No. 250, was indicted in the United States Court for the Northern District of the Indian Territory, sitting at Vinita, charged with the crime of murder, which indictment was filed in open court on the 21st day of October, A.D. 1897. On the same day, the defendant took a change of venue to the United States court at Muscogee, and a transcript of the record and the original indictment was forwarded to the clerk of the United States Court at Muscogee, Indian Territory. On the 13th day of December, A.D. 1897, at the December term of the United States Court for the Northern District of the Indian Territory at Muscogee, the indictment heretofore found was referred to the grand jury, and upon the same day the grand jury returned into open court at Muscogee, Indian Territory, a new indictment against the defendant for murder. On the 22d day of December, A.D. 1897, the defendant was found guilty of the crime of murder, and on the 24th day of December, A.D. 1897, judgment of the court was pronounced upon said defendant sentencing him to death.

On February 11, 1898, plaintiff in error, through his attorney, W. H. Twine, filed a petition for a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States, and also filed his specification of error. A writ of error was allowed on the 19th day of February, 1898, and on the 23d day of February, 1898, service of the citation issued out of this Court was acknowledged. A transcript of the entire record was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States on March 1, 1898. The government has filed its motion to dismiss the writ of error in said case for the reason that the Supreme Court of the United States has no jurisdiction under the law to entertain said writ of error, nor to pass upon any of the alleged error in said record, because said court has no appellate jurisdiction of said cause.

Page 171 U. S. 633

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.