Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0159-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TUMEY v. STATE
    Supreme Court of the U. S.
    No. 527.
    Decided March 8, 1927
    291. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — 1.. A system by which an inferior judge is paid for his services only when he convicts the defendant has not become so embedded by custom in general practice, either at common law or in this country, that it can he regarded as due process of law unless the costs imposed are so small that they he ignored as within de mini-mis non curat lex.
    2. Ohio statutes providing for trial by village mayor of one accused of violating Ohio prohibition act, by vesting' judicial power in one who by reason of his interest, both as an individual and as chief village executive, is disqualified to exercise it, held: Violative of U. S. Amend. XIV as depriving accused persons, so tried, of due process.
    3. State Power to Create Judicial System: Jury Trial. — Legislature of State may provide such system of courts as it chooses and give such territorial jurisdiction thereto as it sees fit, and U. S. Amend. XIV, not requiring jury trial for any offender, does not prevent giving village mayor jurisdiction of justice of peace to try misdemeanors committed anywhere in the county.
    333. CRIMINAL LAW — State legislature may stimulate prosecutions for crime by offering rewards to those who initiate and carry on such prosecutions, and may offer percentage of recovery to informers.
    531. FINES AND PENALTIES — It is completely within power of legislature to dispose of finés collected in criminal cases as it will; e. g.; half to State and half to village by whose mayor they are imposed.
    Attorneys — W. B. Wheeler for State; E. P. Moulinier, Cincinnati, for Tumey.
    Note — OA. opinion willb e found 4 Abs. 109; OS. Pend. 4 Abs. 197; mot. to cert. ov. 4 Abs. 302. See also 25 Nisi (ns) 580.
    The above syllabus is from the opinion of the court which will be reported in the Abstract of next week.