TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Stien

United States v. Stien, 27 F. Cas. 1344 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
September 20, 1875
Judges
Benedict
Citations
27 F. Cas. 134413 Blatchf. 1271875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1590
Headnotes
Case No. 16,403. Criminal Law—Forfeiture of Recognizance— Fugitive from Justice. A defendant in an indictment moved to set aside a forfeiture of a recognizance given by him for his appearance to answer the indictment, on the ground of irregularities as to the time and place of calling him to appear, and of entering the forfeiture. He had absconded to avoid a trial on the indictment, and was a fugitive from justice. Held, that the motion must, for that reason, be denied. [Cited in U. S. v. Evans, 2 Fed. 150.]

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Benedict

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This is a motion made in behalf of Christian A. Stien, to set aside a forfeiture of a recognizance given by him for his appearance to answer an indictment found against him. The application is based upon irregularities as to the time and place of calling the defendant to appear, and of entering the forfeiture. The application is opposed upon several grounds —among others, that the defendant has absconded and fled the country, for the purpose of avoiding trial for the offences with which he is charged in the indictment .referred to, and is now a fugitive from justice, The fact that the defendant has so absconded, not being denied, furnishes a proper ground for the denial of this motion, made as it is on behalf of the defendant. The presence of the accused in court when any proceeding is being taken in his cause, made necessary by the law in many instances, is always desirable, and, under circumstances such as this case presents, a refusal to-hear argument in absence of the defendant seems to be a proper course.

Nor should one under indictment be permitted to.defy the authorities by flight, and, at the same time, through an attorney, to appeal to them to act in his behalf. See In re Genet, 3 N. Y. Sup. Ct. [3 Thomp. & C.] 734; Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y. 49 .

The motion is, accordingly, denied, without passing upon any of the questions raised as to the regularity of the forfeiture in question.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1880–1881: 11894–1895: 11896–1897: 11906–1907: 118802026peak 1880 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Evans2 F. 147 (U.S. Cir. Ct. 1880)
  2. United States v. Sauer73 F. 671 (W.D. Tex. 1896)
  3. Hardy v. United States71 F. 158 (8th Cir. 1895)
  4. United States v. Graner155 F. 679 (1907)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Graner155 F. 679 (1907)
  2. United States v. Sauer73 F. 671 (W.D. Tex. 1896)
  3. Hardy v. United States71 F. 158 (8th Cir. 1895)
  4. United States v. Evans2 F. 147 (U.S. Cir. Ct. 1880)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N.Y. 40 (1871) 68

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list