Ex parte Bollman
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
24 F. Cas. 1189 (1807), 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
A military force brought Erick Bollman and Samuel Swartwout (defendants) from New Orleans to the District of Columbia, and the government (plaintiff) moved for the court to issue a bench warrant against Bollman and Swartwout for treason. A majority of the court decided to issue the bench warrant. Chief Judge Cranch dissented, noting that he did not think there was probable cause to believe that Bollman or Swartwout had waged war against the United States. Two days after the bench warrant was issued, the government moved to commit Bollman and Swartwout for trial. The government objected to allowing Bollman and Swartwout to be heard by counsel at that stage, arguing that prisoners were never represented by counsel at that point and that if Bollman and Swartwout were committed at this stage even after counsel represented them, “it would excite a public prejudice” against Bollman and Swartwout. In response, defense counsel, C. Lee, argued that “[t]o deny a man to be heard by counsel is to deny him a hearing,” in violation of the eighth article of the amendments of the United States Constitution (now the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution) and that the accused should be able to respond to the charges and seek bail.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cranch, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
