Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 U.S. 225

Commonwealth v. Addison

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1801-03-01

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““By the Court. — We are unanimously of opinion, that the case does not present to our consideration an indictable offense; and, of course, it is not a case, in which an information ought to be granted. But we are (with the same unanimity) of opinion, that every judge has a right, and, emphatically, that it is his duty, to deliver his sentiments upon every subject that occurs in court. We add, so far as the expression of our sense of decorum may have weight, that we think, it would be indecent and improper, in any presiding judge to attempt to prevent his associates from the exercise of this right; from .the performance of this duty. Motion refused.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 54 F. Supp. 926 - United States v. Chaplin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1801-03-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1973

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

30180118101820183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

THE attorney-general made a motion, for a rule to show cause, why an Information should not be granted against the defendant, the President of the Courts of Common Pleas, in the fifth circuit; on the affidavit of J. C. Lucas, an associate Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Alleghany county, stating that he had been wilfully prevented by Mr. Addison, from delivering his sentiments to the grand jury, after Mr. Addison, as President, had concluded his charge, &c.

¶2

In support of the motion, the attorney-general cited 1 Reeves. Hist. Eng. Law, 201. c. 4. 2 Ibid. 2. Jacob's L. Dict. tit. 'Chapitre.' 4 Bl. Com. 303. Const. Penn. art. 5. s. 4. 6 Mod. 96.

But, by the COURT:

¶3

We are, unanimously, of opinion, that the case does not present to our consideration an indictable offence; and, of course, it is not a case, in which an information ought to be granted. But we are (with the same unanimity) of opinion, that every Judge has a right, and, emphatically, that it is his duty, to deliver his sentiments upon every subject that occurs in Court. We add, so far as the expression of our sense of decorum may have weight, that we think, it would be indecent and improper, in any presiding Judge, to attempt to prevent his associates from the exercise of this right; from the performance of this duty.

¶4

Motion refused.

/4/us/225 · .json · Public domain