Citation network
Pointer Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 22, 1894
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Pointer v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 151 U.S. 396 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Pointer v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 151 U.S. 396 (1894) Pointer v. UnitedSearch
-
having been thus brought face to face with the jury during these proceedings, the proceedings were regular. Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
indictment in separate counts, then the joinder in question here was proper. Page 151 U. S. 401 In People v. GatesSearch
-
was whether the court should have compelled the district attorney to elect which count he would go upon. In Young v. KingSearch
-
his defense, but these are only matters of prudence or discretion. This court has recently said, in the case of People v. RyndersSearch
-
Substantially to the same general effect are the decisions of other American courts. United States v. O'CallahanSearch
-
Kane v. PeopleSearch
-
Carlton v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Commonwealth v. GillespieSearch
-
Commonwealth v. HillsSearch
-
Campbell v. StateSearch
-
Burk v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Storrs v. StateSearch
-
Baker v. StateSearch
-
Wright v. StateSearch
-
Johnson v. StateSearch
-
Weinzorpflin v. StateSearch
-
State v. HazardSearch
-
Hoskins v. StateSearch
-
Ga. 92, 95. See also Logan v. UnitedSearch
-
has always seemed to depend on the special circumstances of the case in which it has arisen. For instance, in Regina v. TruemanSearch
-
It is contended that the action of the court below in that respect was substantially that condemned in Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
his presence when he exercised his right of challenge, the judgment would be reversed for the reasons stated in Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
standing rule or by special order in a particular case adopt the state practice in that regard. United States v. ShacklefordSearch
-
Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
by some courts as the better practice even where no particular mode of challenge is prescribed by statute. State v. CummingsSearch
-
statute, the order in which peremptory challenges shall be exercised is in the discretion of the court. Commonwealth v. PiperSearch
-
Turpin v. StateSearch
-
Jones v. StateSearch
-
State v. HaysSearch
-
State v. PikeSearch
-
State v. ShelledySearch
-
State v. BoatwrightSearch
-
Schufflin v. OhioSearch
-
cause, is presented for challenge or acceptance. But it is not essential that this mode should be adopted. In Regina v. FrostSearch
-
States to deal with the subject of impaneling juries in criminal cases by rules of their own was recognized in Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
necessary in order to secure an impartial jury. The right of peremptory challenge, this Court said in United States v. MarchantSearch
-
Wheat. 480, 25 U. S. 482 , and in Hayes v. MissouriSearch
-
there cited. Malice may be presumed from the mere fact of killing, nothing further being shown. Commonwealth v. YorkSearch
-
Commonwealth v. HawkinsSearch
-
as charged, although it may have been impossible to discover any adequate motive for the killing. As said in Clifton v. StateSearch
-
So in McLain v. CommonwealthSearch
-
of the United States v. JohnSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Pointer v. UnitedSearch
-
In People v. GatesSearch
-
In Young v. KingSearch
-
of People v. RyndersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial