From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holder v. United States

U.S.
Oct 30, 1893
150 U.S. 91 (1893)

Summary

noting that the trial court had discretion to exclude the testimony of a witness who had not obeyed an exclusion order

Summary of this case from Larson v. Palmateer

Opinion

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.

No. 826.

Submitted October 20, 1893. Decided October 30, 1893.

The question of excluding a witness, pending the testimony of other witnesses in a trial for murder, is within the discretion of the trial court; but if a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, he is not thereby disqualified, but may be proceeded against for contempt, and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct. A general exception to a charge, which does not direct the attention of the court to the particular portions of it to which objection is made, raises no question for review. The denial of a motion for a new trial cannot be assigned for error.

No appearance for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney for defendants in error.


THE case is stated in the opinion.


Holder was convicted of the murder of one Bickford, in the Choctaw Nation, on December 24, 1891. Upon the trial three exceptions were saved, namely: to the overruling of objections to the testimony of a witness who had been present during the examination of the other witnesses in disobedience of an order of court on that subject; to the entire charge of the court; and to the denial of a motion for a new trial.

1. It seems that the court directed the witnesses, except the one under examination, to be excluded from the court-room, and that John Bickford, an uncle of the deceased, remained notwithstanding, but that no objection on that ground was made to Bickford testifying until after he had done so, other evidence had intervened, and he was recalled to testify in relation to the turning over to him by the United States marshal of some personal property of the deceased.

It was then objected that he had heard the testimony of the other witnesses in disregard of the direction of the court in that behalf, and the objection was overruled.

Upon the motion or suggestion of either party, such a direction as that in question is usually given. If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground merely, although the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court. 1 Greenl. Ev. (15th ed.) § 432, and cases cited; Chandler v. Horn, 2 Moody Rob. 423; Rex v. Colley, Moody Malkin, 329; Bulliner v. People, 95 Ill. 394; State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 179; Laughlin v. State, 18 Ohio 99; Wilson v. State; 52 Ala. 299; Lassiter v. State, 67 Ga. 739; Smith v. State, 4 Lea, (Tenn.,) 428; Hubbard v. Hubbard, 7 Or. 42. Clearly, the action of the court in admitting the testimony will not ordinarily be open to revision. Tested by these principles, the exception under consideration cannot be sustained.

2. There is no pretence that the charge of the court, occupying twenty-four pages of the printed record, was erroneous in every part, and no exception to any particular part is shown. The rule is that a general exception to a charge, which does not direct the attention of the court to the particular portions of it to which objection is made, raises no question for review. Burton v. West Jersey Ferry Co., 114 U.S. 474; Chateaugay Ore Iron Co. v. Blake, 144 U.S. 476, 488; Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370.

3. It has also been settled by a long line of decisions of this court that the denial of a motion for new trial cannot be assigned for error. As observed by Mr. Justice Lamar, in Van Stone v. Stillwell Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U.S. 128, 134, no authorities need be cited in support of the proposition.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Holder v. United States

U.S.
Oct 30, 1893
150 U.S. 91 (1893)

noting that the trial court had discretion to exclude the testimony of a witness who had not obeyed an exclusion order

Summary of this case from Larson v. Palmateer

observing that a witness who has violated a sequestration order "is not thereby disqualified [from testifying], and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground" alone, although exclusion may be warranted in some cases

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Rhynes

In Holder the Court held there was no error in not excluding the testimony of a witness violating the rule in a murder trial.

Summary of this case from United States v. Johnston

In Holder v. United States, 1893, 150 U.S. 91, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010, the Supreme Court held that although generally a witness may not be disqualified for disobeying the rule, the trial court may under "particular circumstances" exclude him within its sound discretion.

Summary of this case from Barnard v. Henderson

In Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92, 14 S. Ct. 10, 37 L. Ed. 1010, the Supreme Court said: "If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground, merely, although the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court.

Summary of this case from Coates v. United States

In Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893) the Supreme Court held that although the general rule is that a witness may not be disqualified for disobeying a sequestration rule, the trial court may under "particular circumstances" exclude a disobeying witness.

Summary of this case from State v. Boutte

In Holder the Supreme Court stated: "If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground, merely, although the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court."

Summary of this case from People v. Bridgeforth

noting that a witness's "testimony is open to comment to the jury" to address a sequestration violation

Summary of this case from Spring v. Bradford

In Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893), the Supreme Court held that a defense witness' violation of a sequestration order, without more, did not warrant his exclusion.

Summary of this case from State v. Nguyen
Case details for

Holder v. United States

Case Details

Full title:HOLDER v . UNITED STATES

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 30, 1893

Citations

150 U.S. 91 (1893)
14 S. Ct. 10

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Washington

When a violation of the Rule of Sequestration occurs, however, “this alone does not render the witness' [s]…

Colorado Nat'l Bankshares, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

(1) Strike testimony, such as those parts influenced by the violation of the Rule, Stone v. Wingo, 416 F.2d…