Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. A person who violates an injunction is not entitled, under the Constitution, to a trial by jury. A court enforcing obedience for contempt is not executing the criminal laws but only securing to suitors the rights which it has adjudged them entitled to. In re Debs, 158 U. S. 594. Gompers v. U. S., 233 U. S. 604. Myers v. U. S., 264 U. S. 95. An action to recover a penalty for an alleged violation of the alien immigration act is a civil action and not governed by the criminal provisions of the Constitution. It is of no moment that the statute denominates the offense a misdemeanor, as that merely declares the Government's alternative right to prosecute as for a crime. U. S. v. Regan, 232 U. S. 37. See also Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272, and Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 289, as to deportation of aliens. In Wong Wing v. U. S. (163 U. S. 228) the act of Congress of May 5, 1892, providing for deportation of aliens illegally within the United States, was held repugnant to this amendment in that it did not specifically provide for a judicial trial. Jury Trial The jury referred to is a jury constituted, as it was at common law, of 12 men, but this requirement applies to prosecutions in the Federal courts alone; it does not guarantee trials by jury in the State courts, and so does not preclude a trial without a jury in a State court, or a trial with a jury of less than 12 men. Thompson v. Utah. 170 U. S. 349. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200. If this clause has any application to the order of trials of different indictments it must relate to the time of trial and not to the place and does not prevent the removal of a defendant to another district for trial when another indictment has been found against him. Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 86. A person called as a juror testified that he believed that he had formed an opinion but had not expressed it; that the opinion was based upon evidence not produced in court, and that the opinion would not influence his verdict. Upon a challenge by the defendant, for cause, the court overruled the challenge and permitted him to be sworn as a juror. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 146. Right to jury trial was not denied because after demurrer to indictment had been overruled the jury was dismissed and accused required to plead, and same jury was sworn and trial proceeded. Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U. S. 199. Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. Socialists held denied no constitutional or statutory rights because trial jury was composed exclusively of members of other parties and of property owners. Ruthenberg v. U. S., 245 U. S. 480. This provision "distinctly means a criminal prosecution against a person who is accused and who is to be tried by a petit jury." A criminal prosecution under this amendment is much narrower than a "criminal case" under the Fifth Amendment. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 563. District Wherein the Crime Shall Have Been Committed Under the sixth amendment an accused can not be tried in one district under an indictment showing that the offense was committed in another district. Nor is there any authority for a removal to a district other than that in which the trial may constitutionally be had. Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224. The locality in which an offense is charged to have been committed determines the place and court of trial. Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 83. On an indictment of a United States Senator for receiving or agreeing to receive compensation for services to be rendered in a proceeding before a department, in which it appeared that the tentative arrangement for services was made in Illinois subject to confirmation at St. Louis, Mo., and there subsequently confirmed, it was held that the defendant was properly tried at St. Louis. Burton v. U. S., 202 U. S. 344. In a prosecution for conspiracy, the place of trial can be any State and district where an overt act was performed. Brown v. Elliott, 225 U. S. 392. Hyde v. U. S., 225 U. S. 347. Referring to Revised Statutes, section 1014, the court said: The section makes no discrimination based upon distance, and requires the commitment to be made for trial before the court having cognizance of the offense, wherever that court may sit. Where the statute contains no exception, the courts can not create one. Indeed, the Constitution itself requires that the trial of all crimes shall be held in the State where the crimes have been committed, and the power of Congress to order the surrender of accused persons from other States is a necessary complement of the duty of trying offenses in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 78. A person charged with crime in a district other than that of his residence can not insist upon a right to be tried in the district of his residence, and has neither the legal nor constitutional right to object to removal to the district where the trial is to be had. Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462. Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. The second section of Article III provides, in respect to crimes committed in the States, that the trial by jury shall be had within the State where the crime was committed. This amendment adds the further guaranty, in respect to the place of trial, that the district shall have been previously ascertained by law, leaving the trial of offenses not committed within the State to be controlled by Article III, section 2. The requirements in the latter section is that the trial "shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." Cook v. U. S., 138 U. S. 181. Lamar v. U. S., 241 U. S. 103. The fact that the offense is committed on an American vessel does not give the offender when tried before a consular tribunal the right to invoke the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury on the ground that the deck of the vessel is territory of the United States. In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453. To Be Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Accusation This is a reaffirmation of the essential principles of the common law, but puts it beyond the power of either Congress or the courts to abrogate them. It follows, as a matter of course, that the effect of this provision commences with the statutes fixing or declaring offenses, and, as to them, insures the general rule of the common law that they are not to be construed to embrace offenses which are not within their intention and terms. This does not mean that all the elements of a crime must be set out in the statute on which the prosecutor relies, nor that the statute may not create an offense by the use of inapt or imperfect phraseology, but they must be in some way declared by the legislative power, and can not be constructed by the courts from any supposed intention of the legislature which the statute fails to state. U. S. v. Potter, 56 Fed. 88. Paraiso v. U. S., 207 U. S. 368. The food and drugs act, which declares that "If its package or label shall bear or contain any statement, design, or device regarding the curative or therapeutic effect of such article or any of the ingredients or substances contained therein which is false and fraudulent," is sufficiently certain as to permit of the laying of a definite charge as required by this amendment. Seven Cases v. U. S., 239 U. S. 510. Standard of Guilt Food control act of August 10, 1917, as amended October 22, 1919, penalizing the making of sales of necessaries at unreasonable prices, sets up no ascertainable standard of guilt and is invalid. U. S. v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81. Weeds, Inc., v. U. S., 255 U. S. 109. Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. Indictment Must Set Out Particulars In general. Under a statute which provides for the punishment of those who conspire "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States," an indictment which, in substance, charges that the intent of the accused was to hinder and prevent citizens in the free exercise and enjoyment of "every, each, all, and singular" the rights granted them by the Constitution, with no specification of any particular right, is too vague and general. U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 557. See also Rosen v. U. S., 161 U. S. 40, as to bill of particulars of matter not proper to set out in indictment; and see also Bartell v. U. S., 227 U. S. 427; Burton v. U. S., 202 U. S. 344. Furnishing copy of indictment.-There is no general obligation on the part of the Government to furnish copies of indictments to defendants. "The object of the constitutional provision was merely to secure those rights which by the ancient rules of the common law had been denied to them; but it was not contemplated that this should be done at the expense of the Government. We have no doubt, however, of the power of the court to order a copy of the indictment to be furnished upon the request of the defendant, and at the expense of the Government; and, when such order is made, the clerk is entitled to his fee for the copy." U. S. v. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 173. Reading indictment.—A recital in the record that "thereupon the defendant, being arraigned upon the indictment, pleads thereto not guilty and for trial puts himself upon the country, and the attorney of the United States does the like," is sufficient to show that the defendant was informed of the accusation against him by the reading of the indictment. Johnson v. U. S., 225 U. S. 405. An indictment in the language of the statute is not sufficient unless it apprise the accused with reasonable certainty of the nature of the accusation against him, to the end that he may prepare his defense and plead the judgment as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. U. S. v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 360. In summoning witnesses before a grand jury it is sufficient to apprise them of the names of the parties with respect to whom they will be called upon to testify, without indicating the nature of the charge against such persons. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43. Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. To Be Confronted with the Witnesses Against Him The Right is Without Exception The accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, not if they can be produced nor if they be within the jurisdiction, but absolutely and on all occasions. U. S. v. Angell, 11 Fed. 43. U. S. v. Aviles, 222 Fed. 474. The defendant in a contempt case is not entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against him in open court. Merchants Stock & Grain Co. v. Board of Trade, 201 Fed. 20. As to rights of accused to be confronted with witnesses under the Philippine bill of rights, see Dowdell v. U. S., 221 U. S. 325. Diaz v. U. S., 223 U. S. 442. Foreign Extradition This amendment applies to criminal prosecutions in this country and not to persons extradited for trial under treaties with foreign countries whose laws may be entirely different. Ex parte La Mantia, 206 Fed. 330. In Action to Recover Value of Forfeited Merchandise This constitutional right is not infringed by permitting a deposition of a living witness to be read in an action brought to recover the value of merchandise forfeited to the United States by reason of acts in violation of law. U. S. v. Zucker, 161 U. S. 480. Judgment of Conviction of Larceny, Etc., as Evidence Against Receiver So much of Act of Congress of March 1, 1875, as declares that the judgment of conviction against the principal felons shall be conclusive evidence in the prosecution against the receiver that the property of the United States alleged to have been embezzled, stolen, or purloined had been embezzled, etc., is in violation of this clause. Kirby v. U. S., 174 U. S. 47. Dying Declaration The admission of dying declarations is an exception to this rule. This exception was well established long before the adoption of the Constitution, and was not intended to be abrogated. Kirby v. U. S., 174 U. S. 61. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 282. Testimony Upon Former Trial This provision is not infringed by permitting the testimony of a witness sworn upon a former trial to be read against the accused when a copy of the stenographic report of the former 12703°-S. Doc. 157, 68–1– 43 |