Burdick v. United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Burdick v. United States | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
| Argued December 16, 1914 Decided January 25, 1915 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
| Chief Justice: Edward Douglass White Associate Justices: Joseph McKenna, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., William R. Day, Charles Evans Hughes, Willis Van Devanter, Joseph Rucker Lamar, Mahlon Pitney, James Clark McReynolds |
|||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||
| Majority by: McKenna Joined by: White, Holmes, Day, Hughes, Van Devanter, Lamar, Pitney McReynolds took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:
- A pardoned man must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.
- To do this, the pardoned man must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.
- A pardon carries an 'imputation of guilt', and accepting a pardon is 'an admission of guilt'.
- A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended. A private deed, not communicated to him, whatever may be its character, whether a pardon or release, is totally unknown and cannot be acted on.
United States v. Wilson established that it is possible to reject a (conditional) pardon, even for a capital sentence. Burdick affirmed that the same principle extends to unconditional pardons.
[edit] References
- ^ 236 U.S. 79 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
This article related to a U.S. Supreme Court case is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
