0% found this document useful (0 votes)
139 views2 pages

US Vs Wilson Case Digest

James Porter and George Wilson were charged with robbing mail carriers from Philadelphia to two towns and wounding one of the carriers. They were found guilty of robbing the Reading mail and putting the carrier's life in jeopardy and were sentenced to death. George Wilson later pleaded guilty to additional charges. President Jackson issued a conditional pardon commuting George Wilson's sentence from death to 20 years imprisonment, but George Wilson refused the pardon. The court ruled that a pardon is a deed that requires acceptance, so the court could not force the rejected pardon on Wilson.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
139 views2 pages

US Vs Wilson Case Digest

James Porter and George Wilson were charged with robbing mail carriers from Philadelphia to two towns and wounding one of the carriers. They were found guilty of robbing the Reading mail and putting the carrier's life in jeopardy and were sentenced to death. George Wilson later pleaded guilty to additional charges. President Jackson issued a conditional pardon commuting George Wilson's sentence from death to 20 years imprisonment, but George Wilson refused the pardon. The court ruled that a pardon is a deed that requires acceptance, so the court could not force the rejected pardon on Wilson.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Facts:

On November 26, 1829 and December 6, 1829, James Porter and George Wilson, were
severally charged with robbery of the Reading and Kimberton mail, and wounding the carrier of
the mails from the United States from Philadelphia to Kimberton, and the mail from Philadelphia
to Reading. James Porter and George Wilson, pleaded not guilty to the several bills upon which
they were arrainged; and on the 1st of May, a verdict of guilty was rendered against them, upon
the indictment for robbery of the Reading mail, and putting the life of the carrier in jeopardy. The
circuit court, on the 27th of May 1830, sentenced the defendants to suffer death, on the 2nd July
following, and James Porter was executed in pursuance of this sentence. Subsequently, George
Wilson withdrew the pleas of not guilty to all the indictments against him, except those on which
a nolle prosequi was afterwards entered, and pleaded guilty to the same.
On June 14, 1830, the then President Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, issued a
conditional pardon for the death penalty of George Wilson. In exchange his sentence was
change from death penalty by hanging to imprisonment for 20 years. Accordingly, the defendant
George Wilson did not accept.
Issue:
Whether or not the pardon ought to restrain the court from pronouncing judgment before
them.
Whether or not the defendant can refuse the pardon.
Ruling:
If the convictions be from different robberies, no question of law can arise the effect
which the pardon on the one may have on the proceedings of the other pending case.
The prisoners was convicted of robbing the mall and putting the life of the carrier in
jeopardy, for which the punishment is death. He had also been convicted on an indictment for
the same robbery without putting life in jeopardy, for which the punishment is fine and
imprisonment, and the question supposed to be submitted to whether a pardon of a greater
offense, excluding the less, necessarily contends this, against its own express term.
The Constitution grants the president the power to grant reprieves and pardon for
offenses against the state.

A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not
complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and
if it is rejected, the court have no power to force it on him.

You might also like