THE UNITED STATES
v.
KELLY AND OTHERS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court upheld convictions for attempted mutiny aboard a vessel, rejecting the defendants' argument that Congress had failed to define the offense with sufficient clarity. The Court held that federal courts possess the inherent authority to judicially define crimes even when statutes do not explicitly do so, and it defined mutiny as an attempt by crew members to overthrow the lawful commander's authority with intent to seize control of the vessel.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Washington delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case comes before the Court upon a certificate of a division of opinion of the Judges of the Circuit Court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, upon the following point assigned by the defendants as a reason in arrest of judgment, viz. “ that the act of Congress does not define the offence of endeavouring to make a revolt, and it is not competent to the Court to give a judicial definition of an offence heretofore unknown.”
This Court is of opinion, that although the act of Congress does not define this offence, it is, nevertheless, competent to the Court to give a judicial definition of it. We think, that the offence consists in the endeavour of the crew of a vessel, or any one or more of them, to overthrow the legitimate authority of her commander, with intent to remove him from his command, or against his will to take possession of the vessel by assuming the government and navigation of her, or by transferring their obedience from the lawful commander to some other person.
Certificate accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015)…rp,Justice Washington, writing for this Court, later rejected the argument that lower courts could arrest a judgment under the same ship-revolt statute because it "does not define the offence of endeavouring to make a revolt." United States v. Kelly,11 Wheat. 417, 418, 6 L.Ed. 508 (1826). The Court explained that "it is ... competent to the Court to give a judicial definition" of "the offence of endeavouring to make a revolt," and that such definition "consists in the endeavour of the crew of a vessel, or…
-
Rees v. United States, 95 F.2d 784 (4th Cir. 1938)…68 F. 15; United States v. Almeida, 24 Fed.Cas. p. 775, No. 14,433; United States v. Barker, 24 Fed. Cas. p. 985, No. 14,516; United States v. Seagrist, 27 Fed.Cas. p. 1002, No. 16,245; United States v. Huff, C.C., 13 F. 630; United States v. Kelly, 11 Wheat. 417, 6 L.Ed. 508. In the case of United States v. Gooding, 25 U.S. 460, 12 Wheat. 460, 474, 6 L.Ed. 693, Mr. Justice Story said: “In general, it may be said, that it is sufficient certainty in an indictment, to allege the offence in the very terms of t…