Plaintiff
Thomas Cunningham, Sheriff of the County of San Joaquin, California
Defendant
David Neagle
Plaintiff's Claim
That in killing Judge David S. Terry, Neagle was merely acting in his capacity as U.S. Marshall, charged with protecting the life of Supreme Court JusticeStephen J. Field, and that Neagle should therefore not be charged with murder.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
California Attorney General G. A. Johnson, Z. Montgomery
Chief Defense Lawyers
Joseph H. Choate; William Henry Harrison Miller, U.S. Attorney General
Justices for the Court
Samuel Blatchford, Joseph P. Bradley, David Josiah Brewer, Horace Gray, JohnMarshall Harlan I, Samuel Freeman Miller
Justices Dissenting
Melville Weston Fuller, Lucius Quintus C. Lamar (Stephen Johnson Field did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1890
Decision
That Neagle was indeed acting in his capacity as U.S. Marshall and was therefore not to be indicted for murder.
Significance
The decision to view Neagle as acting in his capacity as federal marshall, rather than as a candidate for indictment for murder by a state grand jury, wasan affirmation of the power of both the federal government and of its executive branch, in whose name Neagle was acting.
At first glance, the story of In re Neagle reads like a crime thriller. It has everything: romance, murderous revenge, and a heroic federal marshall who risks his own life to protect a Supreme Court justice. Significantly, however, the case established the power of the federal government to supersedea state's criminal court system and to grant immunity to government officials acting in service of their country.
The first chapter of the story is set in California in 1883. William Sharon,a wealthy citizen of Nevada, sued in federal court in California to nullify his marriage to Sarah Althea Hill. According to Sharon, the marriage contractin Hill's possession was a forgery, and he wanted it back.
Sharon died before the suit was over, but a decision in his favor was handeddown after his death. Meanwhile, Hill had fallen in love with David S. Terry,a distinguished lawyer who had once been chief justice of the California Supreme Court.
The Seeds of Vengeance
Sharon's heir still wanted the new Mrs. Terry to return her marriage contract. In 1888 he brought suit to that effect, also in federal court in California. Two local federal judges sat on this court, along with Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field. As was the custom in those days, Supreme Court justices also served part of the year as federal court judges.
Field had formerly been an associate justice on the California Supreme Courtunder Chief Justice Terry. When Terry had left the post of chief justice, Field had succeeded to it. Yet Terry was now to become Field's bitter enemy.
When the three-judge panel, headed by Field, called Mrs. Terry and her husband as a party to the suit, both she and her husband denied that Sharon's heirhad any rights. Soon afterward, on 14 August 1888, one of the other judges onthe panel found himself on a train leaving Fresno, California, the home of the Terrys. The Terrys "grossly insulted" the judge, according to the accountof the case written up by Justice Miller in the Supreme Court decision. Reportedly, Mrs. Terry actually pulled the judge's hair, while Mr. Terry said, "The best thing to do with him would be to take him out into the bay and drown him."
On 3 September 1888, the three-judge panel ruled against Mrs. Terry once again. She shouted at the judge, causing Justice Field to ask the marshall to remove her from the courtroom.
Mr. Terry did eventually draw a bowie knife, so that others had to wrestle itaway from him. "The most prominent person engaged in wresting the knife fromTerry," wrote Justice Miller, "was Neagle . . . " Meanwhile, Mrs. Terry wastrying to open a small satchel that she had with her. When the satchel was taken from her, it was found to contain a revolver.
Murder or Duty?
Both Mr. and Mrs. Terry were sentenced to imprisonment for contempt. From then on, they were frequently heard to make open threats against Justice Field.The threats seemed so genuine that when Field was planning to return to California to resume his duties as Circuit Court Judge, David Neagle was appointeda deputy marshall for the Northern District of California and was assigned to protect Justice Field.
One early morning, while Field's train had stopped at Fresno, the Terrys boarded the train. Although Neagle suggested to Justice Field that he have breakfast in his own sleeping car, Field insisted on going to eat in the regular breakfast car. When the Terrys entered the car, Mrs. Terry saw Field and ran quickly out of the room. Terry, on the contrary, took his seat. Soon, however,he came to stand behind Field and began to beat him on both sides of his face. As Miller described it:
Immediately afterwards, Mrs. Terry rushed in, her satchel in her hand. She threw herself on Terry's body--some say, to remove his bowie knife, for when Terry was later examined, he was found to be unarmed.
The "Peace of the United States"
Neagle was jailed for murder and feared what might happen to him in a community dominated by the Terrys' friends. He was able to obtain a writ of habeas corpus--perhaps because the judge who issued it, Lorenzo Sawyer, was the same judge who had been harassed and threatened by the Terrys in an earlierincident on a train.
With the writ, Neagle was freed, but he still faced the possibility of a murder trial. The sheriff in the jurisdiction where he had killed Terry appealedto the Supreme Court for the return of the prisoner. The question was whetherNeagle was liable for murder--however justified--under the laws of the stateof California, or if was he acting in his capacity as federal marshall, andtherefore subject only to federal law. (Laws about murder are always state laws.)
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the man who had evidently saved the lifeof one of its members. Miller explained:
Two justices did dissent from this opinion. They objected to the intrusion offederal power into the hitherto sacred domain of state criminal law. However, even these dissenters praised Neagle for his courage and quick thinking, and expressed their belief that even if he had been tried, a jury surely wouldhave acquitted him.
Related Cases
Thomas Cunningham, Sheriff of the County of San Joaquin, California
Defendant
David Neagle
Plaintiff's Claim
That in killing Judge David S. Terry, Neagle was merely acting in his capacity as U.S. Marshall, charged with protecting the life of Supreme Court JusticeStephen J. Field, and that Neagle should therefore not be charged with murder.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
California Attorney General G. A. Johnson, Z. Montgomery
Chief Defense Lawyers
Joseph H. Choate; William Henry Harrison Miller, U.S. Attorney General
Justices for the Court
Samuel Blatchford, Joseph P. Bradley, David Josiah Brewer, Horace Gray, JohnMarshall Harlan I, Samuel Freeman Miller
Justices Dissenting
Melville Weston Fuller, Lucius Quintus C. Lamar (Stephen Johnson Field did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1890
Decision
That Neagle was indeed acting in his capacity as U.S. Marshall and was therefore not to be indicted for murder.
Significance
The decision to view Neagle as acting in his capacity as federal marshall, rather than as a candidate for indictment for murder by a state grand jury, wasan affirmation of the power of both the federal government and of its executive branch, in whose name Neagle was acting.
At first glance, the story of In re Neagle reads like a crime thriller. It has everything: romance, murderous revenge, and a heroic federal marshall who risks his own life to protect a Supreme Court justice. Significantly, however, the case established the power of the federal government to supersedea state's criminal court system and to grant immunity to government officials acting in service of their country.
The first chapter of the story is set in California in 1883. William Sharon,a wealthy citizen of Nevada, sued in federal court in California to nullify his marriage to Sarah Althea Hill. According to Sharon, the marriage contractin Hill's possession was a forgery, and he wanted it back.
Sharon died before the suit was over, but a decision in his favor was handeddown after his death. Meanwhile, Hill had fallen in love with David S. Terry,a distinguished lawyer who had once been chief justice of the California Supreme Court.
The Seeds of Vengeance
Sharon's heir still wanted the new Mrs. Terry to return her marriage contract. In 1888 he brought suit to that effect, also in federal court in California. Two local federal judges sat on this court, along with Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field. As was the custom in those days, Supreme Court justices also served part of the year as federal court judges.
Field had formerly been an associate justice on the California Supreme Courtunder Chief Justice Terry. When Terry had left the post of chief justice, Field had succeeded to it. Yet Terry was now to become Field's bitter enemy.
When the three-judge panel, headed by Field, called Mrs. Terry and her husband as a party to the suit, both she and her husband denied that Sharon's heirhad any rights. Soon afterward, on 14 August 1888, one of the other judges onthe panel found himself on a train leaving Fresno, California, the home of the Terrys. The Terrys "grossly insulted" the judge, according to the accountof the case written up by Justice Miller in the Supreme Court decision. Reportedly, Mrs. Terry actually pulled the judge's hair, while Mr. Terry said, "The best thing to do with him would be to take him out into the bay and drown him."
On 3 September 1888, the three-judge panel ruled against Mrs. Terry once again. She shouted at the judge, causing Justice Field to ask the marshall to remove her from the courtroom.
[Mr. Terry] . . . struck the marshalla blow in his face so violent as to knock out a tooth. He then unbuttoned his coat, thrust his hand under his vest, apparently for the purpose of drawinga bowie-knife, when he was seized by persons present and forced down on hisback.
Mr. Terry did eventually draw a bowie knife, so that others had to wrestle itaway from him. "The most prominent person engaged in wresting the knife fromTerry," wrote Justice Miller, "was Neagle . . . " Meanwhile, Mrs. Terry wastrying to open a small satchel that she had with her. When the satchel was taken from her, it was found to contain a revolver.
Murder or Duty?
Both Mr. and Mrs. Terry were sentenced to imprisonment for contempt. From then on, they were frequently heard to make open threats against Justice Field.The threats seemed so genuine that when Field was planning to return to California to resume his duties as Circuit Court Judge, David Neagle was appointeda deputy marshall for the Northern District of California and was assigned to protect Justice Field.
One early morning, while Field's train had stopped at Fresno, the Terrys boarded the train. Although Neagle suggested to Justice Field that he have breakfast in his own sleeping car, Field insisted on going to eat in the regular breakfast car. When the Terrys entered the car, Mrs. Terry saw Field and ran quickly out of the room. Terry, on the contrary, took his seat. Soon, however,he came to stand behind Field and began to beat him on both sides of his face. As Miller described it:
He also had his arm drawn back and his fist doubled up, apparently to strike a third blow, when Neagle, who had beenobserving him all this time, arose from his seat with his revolver in his hand, and in a very loud voice shouted out: "Stop! Stop! I am an officer!" Uponthis Terry turned his attention to Neagle, and, as Neagle testifies, seemed to recognize him, and immediately turned his hand to thrust it in his bosom, as Neagle felt sure, with the purpose of drawing a bowie-knife. At this instant Neagle fired two shots from his revolver into the body of Terry, who immediately sank down and died in a few minutes.
Immediately afterwards, Mrs. Terry rushed in, her satchel in her hand. She threw herself on Terry's body--some say, to remove his bowie knife, for when Terry was later examined, he was found to be unarmed.
The "Peace of the United States"
Neagle was jailed for murder and feared what might happen to him in a community dominated by the Terrys' friends. He was able to obtain a writ of habeas corpus--perhaps because the judge who issued it, Lorenzo Sawyer, was the same judge who had been harassed and threatened by the Terrys in an earlierincident on a train.
With the writ, Neagle was freed, but he still faced the possibility of a murder trial. The sheriff in the jurisdiction where he had killed Terry appealedto the Supreme Court for the return of the prisoner. The question was whetherNeagle was liable for murder--however justified--under the laws of the stateof California, or if was he acting in his capacity as federal marshall, andtherefore subject only to federal law. (Laws about murder are always state laws.)
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the man who had evidently saved the lifeof one of its members. Miller explained:
It would be a great reproach to the system of government of the United States, declared to be within its sphere sovereign and supreme, if there is to be found within the domain ofits powers no means of protecting the judges, in the conscientious and faithful discharge of their duties, from the malice and hatred of those upon whomtheir judgments may operate unfavorably . . .Miller went on tocompare Deputy Marshal Neagle with a sheriff. Just as a sheriff is charged with keeping the peace of a state, he wrote, so must a marshall keep the peaceof the nation. In protecting a federal judge, Neagle had fulfilled his responsibilities as a U.S. marshall.
Two justices did dissent from this opinion. They objected to the intrusion offederal power into the hitherto sacred domain of state criminal law. However, even these dissenters praised Neagle for his courage and quick thinking, and expressed their belief that even if he had been tried, a jury surely wouldhave acquitted him.
Related Cases
- Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925).
- Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974).
User Comments Add a comment…