Legal Opinion

State v. Mercier

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 4, 1925PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPowers, J.

This respondent, who was convicted in the Burlington city court of the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, says that his conviction should be set aside because he was denied the full benefit of his constitutional right to a trial by jury.

While the right to a trial before an impartial jury is guaranteed by the organic law (Const. Vt. Ch. I, Art. 10), and while this right is to be held sacred, (Ibid, Art. 12), and is to be given effect according to the course of the common law (Plimpton v. Somerset, 33 Vt. 283), it does not follow that no change in the procedural requirements by which…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. People v. PeeteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  2. Plimpton v. Town of SomersetSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
  3. Snider v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
  4. Albert v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1922
  5. State v. KrinskiSupreme Court of Vermont · 1905

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hayworth v. BromwellIndiana Supreme Court · 1959
  2. State v. MurphySupreme Court of Vermont · 1976
  3. State v. KamudaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1925
  4. State v. SantelliSupreme Court of Vermont · 1992
  5. Westcom v. MeunierSupreme Court of Vermont · 1996

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API