Could not find header file for oye


  • View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    RODMAN v. POTHIER, 264 U.S. 399 (1924)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    RODMAN v. POTHIER, 264 U.S. 399 (1924)

    264 U.S. 399

    RODMAN, U. S. Marshal,
    No. 546.

    Argued March 14, 1924.
    Decided April 7, 1924.

    [264 U.S. 399, 400]   The Attorney General and Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

    Messrs. Louis Marshall, of New York City, and Davis G. Arnold, of Providence, R. I., for respondent.

    Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

    Respondent Pothier and another were duly indicted-October 13, 1922- for the murder of Alexander P. Cronkhite, on October 25, 1918, 'within and on lands theretofore acquired for the exclusive use of the United States, and under the exclusive jurisdiction thereof, and within the Southern division of the Western district of Washington, to wit, within and on the Camp Lawis Military Reservation.' Pothier was arrested in the state of Rhode Island and, after hearings before the commissioner and the District Court, a warrant for his removal was directed as provided by section 1014, Rev. Stat. (Comp. St. 1674). By this habeas corpus proceeding the validity of the warrant is questioned and respondent's release sought. His contention is that the United States had not acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the place of the crime as alleged by the indictment, because they had not then received a deed to the land. [264 U.S. 399, 401]   The District Court said and held (In re Pothier, 285 Fed. 632):

    The Circuit Court of Appeals (Pothier v. Rodman, 291 Fed. 311) was--

    It accordingly reversed the judgment of the District Court and directed Pothier's discharge.

    We think there was enough to show probable cause and that the judgment of the District Court is correct. Whether the locus of the alleged crime was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States demands consideration of many facts and seriously controverted questions of law. As heretofore often pointed out, these matters must be determined by the court where the indictment was found. The regular course may not be anticipated by alleging want of jurisdiction and demanding a ruling thereon in a habeas corpus proceeding. Barring certain exceptional cases ( unlike the present one), this court--


    FindLaw Career Center

    Ads by FindLaw