United States v. Wilson
8 L. Ed. 640, 32 U.S. 150, 7 Pet. 150 (1833)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A presidential pardon is a private deed that is not legally effective unless it is accepted by the recipient and brought judicially before the court by plea, motion, or other formal means.
Facts:
- George Wilson was indicted for robbing the mail and putting the life of the mail carrier in jeopardy.
- Wilson was the subject of two separate indictments for the same robbery: one for simple mail robbery and another for the more serious offense which included putting a life in jeopardy.
- He was convicted on the more serious charge and sentenced to death.
- He was also separately convicted on the less serious charge of simple mail robbery.
- The President of the United States issued a pardon to Wilson.
- The pardon explicitly applied to the conviction and death sentence for the more serious crime but expressly reserved and excluded the conviction for the less serious mail robbery.
- When asked in court if he wished to avail himself of the pardon for the less serious offense, Wilson declined and stated he did not want to use it.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury returned an indictment against Wilson for robbing the mail in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Wilson initially pleaded not guilty but later withdrew that plea and pleaded guilty.
- The district attorney moved for judgment, but the court suggested inquiring into the effect of a presidential pardon that had been granted to Wilson.
- Wilson's counsel appeared and, on Wilson's behalf, declined to take any advantage of the pardon.
- The district attorney argued that the pardon was inapplicable and that, in any case, Wilson could not benefit from it without formally presenting it to the court.
- The judges of the circuit court were divided in opinion on the legal questions and certified them to the Supreme Court of the United States for resolution.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a presidential pardon have legal effect if the recipient rejects it and fails to bring it judicially before the court by plea, motion, or otherwise?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Marshall
No, a presidential pardon has no legal effect if the recipient rejects it and fails to bring it judicially before the court. A pardon is an act of grace and functions as a private deed from the executive to an individual. For a deed to be valid, it requires both delivery and acceptance. If the pardon is rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, it is incomplete, and a court has no power to force it upon him. A court sees only with 'judicial eyes' and can only act upon facts and documents, like a pardon, that are formally brought to its attention through a plea, motion, or other proceeding. Unlike a pardon by an act of parliament, which is a public law that courts must notice on their own, a presidential pardon must be formally pleaded by the party wishing to benefit from it.
Analysis:
This case establishes that a presidential pardon is not a self-executing public decree but a private grant that requires acceptance to be valid. The Court's analogy of a pardon to a private deed solidifies the principle of individual autonomy, affirming that a person can reject an act of executive grace. This decision reinforces the formalistic nature of judicial proceedings, requiring that all matters a court is to consider, including pardons, be officially entered into the record. It creates a clear procedural requirement for invoking a pardon, preventing courts from acting on informal knowledge and ensuring the defendant's own wishes regarding the pardon are respected.
