HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0438 and id is 1 raw text is: Oct. 1878.] REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES.
REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES.
1. Sect. 808 of the Revised Statutes, providing for impanelling grand juries and
prescribing the number of which they shall consist, applies only to the
Circuit and the District Courts of the United States. An indictment for
bigamy under sect. 5352 may, therefore, be found in a district court of
Utah, by a grand jury of fifteen persons, impanelled pursuant to the laws
of that Territory.
2. A petit juror in a criminal case testified on his voire dire that he believed that
he had formed an opinion, although not upon evidence produced in court,
as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner; but that he had not expressed
it, and did not think that it would influence his verdict. He was thereupon
challenged by the prisoner for cause. The court overruled the challenge.
Held, that its action was not erroneous.
3. Where it is apparent from the record that the challenge of'a petit juror, if it
had been made by the United States for favor, should have beeii sustained,
the judgment against the prisoner will not be reversed, simply because the
challenge was in form for cause.
4. Although the Constitution declares that in all criminal prosecutions the ac-
cused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against
him, yet if they are absent by his procurement, or when enough has been
proved to cast upon him the burden of showing, and he, having full oppor-
tunity therefor, fails to show, that he has not been instrumental in con-
cealing them or in keeping them away, he is in no condition to assert that
his constitutional right has been violated by allowing competent evidence
of the testimony which they gave on a previous trial between the United
States and him upon the same issue. Such evidence is admissible.
5. Said sect. 5352 is in all respects constitutional and valid.
6. The scope and meaning of the first article of the amendments to the Constitu-
tion discussed.
7. A party's religious belief cannot be accepted as a justification for his com-
mitting an overt act, made criminal by the law of the land. 'Where, there-
fore, the prisoner, knowing that his wife was living, married again in Utah,
and, when indicted and tried therefor, set up that the church whereto he
belonged enjoined upon its male members to practise polygamy, and that
he, with the sanction of the recognized authorities of the church, and by a
ceremony performed pursuant to its doctrines, did marry again,-Held,
that the court properly refused to charge the jury that he was entitled to
an acquittal, although they should find that he had contracted such second
marriage pursuant to, and in conformity with, what he believed at the time
to be a religious duty.
8. The court told the jury to consider what are to be the consequences to the
innocent victims of this delusion [the doctrine of polygamy]. As this
contest goes on they multiply, and there are pure-minded women and there
are innocent children, - innocent in a sense even beyond the degree of the
innocence of childhood itself. These are to be the sufferers; and as jurors
fail to do their duty, and as these cases come up in the Territory of Utah,
just so do these victims multiply and spread themselves over the land.
Held, that the charge was not improper.
'oVl Til. 10](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0438&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)