Breese v. United States
Headline: Court upheld a bank-embezzlement indictment, refused to quash late objections about grand jury presentation, and held defendants lost their chance to challenge the indictment.
Holding:
- Bars defendants from quashing indictments for late grand jury presentation objections.
- Affirms that purely formal defects do not void an indictment when no prejudice appears.
- Requires defendants to raise grand jury presentation complaints promptly or lose them.
Summary
Background
Three defendants were indicted in 1897 under a federal statute for a conspiracy to embezzle funds of a national bank. The defendants earlier pleaded not guilty under a court order that preserved certain later objections, and years later they moved to quash the indictment, arguing the grand jury foreman delivered the bill to the judge alone without the other jurors present.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether that mode of presenting the bill made the indictment void or required quashing. It concluded the indictment was not void, that any defect in how the bill was brought in was at most a formal one, and that no showing of prejudice had been made. The opinion explained that defendants were required to raise such objections at the first available opportunity, and by delaying their challenge they waived the right to rely on it. The Court also relied on a statute saying indictments should not be defeated by mere formal defects.
Real world impact
The decision means this indictment survived the procedural challenge and convictions could stand despite the contested mode of presentation. Practically, criminal defendants who wait to complain about how a grand jury presented an indictment risk losing that objection, and courts will treat purely formal presentation errors less harshly when no prejudice appears.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?