United States v. Dickinson

Background

John W. Dickinson and another man, Foster, were indicted under a federal bank law after Foster, the cashier at the South Danvers National Bank, was accused of willfully misapplying bank funds and Dickinson was accused of helping him. During the trial one juror left because of illness and later another was excused after a family death. With written consent from the parties the trial continued first with eleven jurors and then with ten, and those ten returned a guilty verdict. Dickinson moved to arrest judgment because a federal jury must have twelve members, the motion was denied, and he was sentenced to nine years.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Supreme Court could use the 1891 law’s certiorari power to review a criminal conviction merely to correct an ordinary trial error like an insufficient jury. The Court examined the 1891 statute and prior decisions and concluded that appeals or writs of error in criminal cases require clear statutory authority and that certiorari under that act cannot serve as a substitute to correct ordinary trial errors. Because the 1891 act did not grant the Government the right to bring up such criminal cases by certiorari for mere correction of error, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari.

Real world impact

The decision means the Supreme Court will not routinely use certiorari under the 1891 law to fix ordinary criminal-trial mistakes unless Congress has plainly given that power. In this instance, the Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling—that a conviction reached by a ten-member jury was invalid—remains in effect because the Supreme Court declined to review the merits. Prosecutors and lower courts must rely on specific statutory review procedures when seeking Supreme Court review in criminal matters.