About: Stettinius v. United States     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/c/2SiP5UH7h2

Stettinius v. United States, 22 F. Cas. 1322 (C.C.D.C. 1839), was a decision of the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia that was handed down in November 1839. It reversed the conviction of a defendant for unlawfully passing paper currency because the indictment did not properly aver, and the verdict did not properly find that the notes he had allegedly passed were indeed paper currency. US Attorney Francis Scott Key argued the case for the government.

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Stettinius v. United States (en)
rdfs:comment
  • Stettinius v. United States, 22 F. Cas. 1322 (C.C.D.C. 1839), was a decision of the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia that was handed down in November 1839. It reversed the conviction of a defendant for unlawfully passing paper currency because the indictment did not properly aver, and the verdict did not properly find that the notes he had allegedly passed were indeed paper currency. US Attorney Francis Scott Key argued the case for the government. (en)
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
has abstract
  • Stettinius v. United States, 22 F. Cas. 1322 (C.C.D.C. 1839), was a decision of the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia that was handed down in November 1839. It reversed the conviction of a defendant for unlawfully passing paper currency because the indictment did not properly aver, and the verdict did not properly find that the notes he had allegedly passed were indeed paper currency. The defendant argued that he should be allowed to offer his construction of the law to the jury as an alternative to the trial court's interpretation. That prompted a detailed review by the Circuit Court of the law regarding jury nullification. The court concluded that while parties may argue a point of law to the jury before the court has ruled on it, they have no right to do so afterward. US Attorney Francis Scott Key argued the case for the government. (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage disambiguates of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git147 as of Sep 06 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3331 as of Sep 2 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 52 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software