Ex parte Ruthven
Supreme Court of Missouri
This was an application for a habeas corpus, the grounds of which are fully set forth in the opinion of the court. The discharge of the jury from giving a verdict in a capital case, without the consent of the prisoner, the jury being unable to agree, is not a bar to a subsequent trial for the same offence.
Read the full summary
This was an application for a habeas corpus, the grounds of which are fully set forth in the opinion of the court. The discharge of the jury from giving a verdict in a capital case, without the consent of the prisoner, the jury being unable to agree, is not a bar to a subsequent trial for the same offence. Courts are invested with discretionary authority, in cases of this nature, and have a right to discharge the jury; and the security which the public have for the faithful, sound and conscientious exercise of this discretion rests, in this as in other Cases, upon tbe responsibility of the…
1Opinion of the CourtGamble, Judge
The petitioner states, that he was indicted for murder, and confined in the jail of Cole county, upon that indictment; that at the November term of the Circuit Court of that county, in the year 1852, there was a trial of the cause; and that after it had continued for twelve days, the cause was committed to the jury, who retired.to consider of their verdict, and after an absence of a few hours returned into court, and announced to the court that they could not agree, and that two of their number were indisposed; that the judge directed the jury to retire for half an hour or an hour, and he…
2Cited by15 opinions
- State v. RossSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Smith v. HessIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Ex parte TiceOregon Supreme Court · 1897
- Ex parte MaxwellNevada Supreme Court · 1876
- Ex parte WinstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.