One cannot complain until he is made to suffer, nor can one
appeal from an order dismissing him from custody.
Where the indictment has been dismissed and no new indictment
has been returned for the same offense and the statutory period of
limitations has elapsed, the question whether accused was entitled
under the Constitution to a speedy trial becomes a moot one, and a
writ of error to review an order dismissing the indictment under
such circumstances will be dismissed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Page 216 U. S. 612
PER CURIAM.
Lewis was indicted December 1, 1905, in the District Court of
the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri, charged
with depositing certain letters in a post office of the United
States in pursuance of a scheme to defraud, in violation of § 5480
of the Revised Statutes .
General orders continuing all pending criminal cases were
thereafter entered at each term until November 5, 1907, when
plaintiff in error, defendant below, moved for a discharge from the
accusations of the indictment upon the ground that his right to a
speedy trial had been denied. The court ordered that, unless the
cause should be proceeded with at that term the motion would be
sustained; but later, all pending criminal cases were again
continued by general order.
At the following May term, defendant below again filed a motion
to discharge, and the United States attorney asked leave to enter a
nolle prosequi. Defendant's motion was overruled and the
nolle prosequi entered, releasing and discharging
defendant from further prosecution upon the indictment. A motion to
set aside the
nolle prosequi was made and overruled, and
this writ of error direct to this Court sued out under § 5 of the
Act of March 3, 1891.
It thus appears that this is an appeal by a person indicted for
crime from an order of the court releasing and discharging him from
further prosecution under the indictment. Plaintiff in error could
not complain until he was made to suffer,
Lloyd v.
Dollison, 194 U. S. 445, and
when discharged from custody, he is not legally aggrieved, and
therefore cannot appeal.
Commonwealth v. Graves, 112 Mass.
282;
Anglo-American Prov. Co. v. Davis Prov. Co.,
191 U. S. 376.
Page 216 U. S. 613
The indictment having been dismissed, the question as to
plaintiff in error's constitutional right to a speedy trial is not
involved in such a real sense as to give this Court jurisdiction.
Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276.
Plaintiff in error was indicted December 1, 1905, for certain
violations of § 5480 of the Revised Statutes alleged to have been
committed on the first day of February, 1904. That indictment
having been
nolle prossed, and no new indictment appearing
to have been returned against him within three years from the date
of the commission of the alleged offenses, or, if returned, to be
still pending, it is manifest that he has been discharged by the
statute of limitations, and that this case, in the circumstances
disclosed, has become merely a moot case.
Writ of error dismissed.