TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Trezza v. Brush

Trezza v. Brush, 142 U.S. 160 (1891)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 21, 1891
Docket
No. 1123
Judges
Fuller
Citations
142 U.S. 160
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

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

Opinion — Fuller

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller :

Trezza was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Court of Sessions of Kings County, New York, June 6, 1890, and sentenced to death. The warrant for the execution of the judgment and sentence was duly issued to the agent and warden of the state prison at Sing Sing, and under it Trezza was committed to his custody.

*161 ■An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals and the judgment affirmed, (125 N. Y. 740 ,) whereupon, March 6,1891, the Court of Sessions ordered the judgment of conviction and sentence of death to be executed and enforced in the manner provided by law, and issued a second warrant to the warden. Trezza then presented his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and brings the order of that court denying its prayer to this court on appeal.

Petitioner claimed that by his imprisonment under the first warrant he had been once punished for the offence for which he had been convicted, and that solitary confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, and hence that he was restrained in violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the 'Constitution of the United States; and he objected hlso that the warrant was not sufficiently definite and specific.

The record has not been printed nor have briefs been filed on either side, and appellant was not represented by counsel when the cause came on for hearing. We have, however, carefully examined the transcript, and find no ,ground upon which to arrive at a different conclusion from that just announced in the case of McElvaine.

The judgment is affirmed, and the mandate ordered to issue at once.

How later courts describe this case

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

1900: 11941: 11972: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Murphy v. Massachusetts177 U.S. 155 (1900)
  2. Shack v. State288 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. 1972)
  3. Elliott v. Thompson120 P.2d 1014 (Idaho 1941)

Most recent

  1. Shack v. State288 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. 1972)
  2. Elliott v. Thompson120 P.2d 1014 (Idaho 1941)
  3. Murphy v. Massachusetts177 U.S. 155 (1900)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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