Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Trezza v. Brush, 1891 — 142 U.S. 160 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Trezza v. Brush
142 U.S. 160·Supreme Court of the United States·1891
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Trezza v. Brush.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
No. 1123.
Decided December 21, 1891.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Fuller :]
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller :
Trezza was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Court of Sessions of Kings County, New York, June 6, 1890, and sentenced to death. The warrant for the execution of the judgment and sentence was duly issued to the agent and warden of the state prison at Sing Sing, and under it Trezza was committed to his custody.
■An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals and the judgment affirmed, (125 N. Y. 740,) whereupon, March 6,1891, the Court of Sessions ordered the judgment of conviction and sentence of death to be executed and enforced in the manner provided by law, and issued a second warrant to the warden. Trezza then presented his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and brings the order of that court denying its prayer to this court on appeal.
Petitioner claimed that by his imprisonment under the first warrant he had been once punished for the offence for which he had been convicted, and that solitary confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, and hence that he was restrained in violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the 'Constitution of the United States; and he objected hlso that the warrant was not sufficiently definite and specific.
The record has not been printed nor have briefs been filed on either side, and appellant was not represented by counsel when the cause came on for hearing. We have, however, carefully examined the transcript, and find no ,ground upon which to arrive at a different conclusion from that just announced in the case of McElvaine.
The judgment is affirmed, and the mandate ordered to issue at once.