Burdick v. United States | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued December 16, 1914 Decided January 25, 1915 | |
Full case name | George Burdick v. United States |
Citations | 236 U.S. 79 (more) 35 S. Ct. 267; 59 L. Ed. 476; 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1799 |
Case history | |
Prior | United States v. Burdick, 211 F. 492 (S.D.N.Y. 1914) |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | 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), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:
A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted 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.[1]
United States v. Wilson (1833) 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.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search