United States v. Burr

United States Circuit Court for the District of Virginia · 1807 · Evidence

25 F. Cas. 187, F. Cas. No. 14694 (CC Va. 1807)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencecommitmentbailimplied judicial powerscriminal jurisdictionprobable causegrand juryrecognizance

Facts

Burr argued against the government's motion to commit him, contending in part that the grand jury was already in session and that the prosecutor should proceed by bill rather than by application to the court. He also argued that he had already been charged with treason, making a new motion to commit improper. The court stated that a prior application to charge Burr with treason had been rejected by another judge for lack of probable cause, so Burr stood as if no such charge had been made. The prosecutor indicated a desire to proceed with the motion and to present testimony in support of commitment.

Issue

Whether a federal court, sitting as a court, has authority to commit a person charged with an offense against the United States, and, if so, whether the prosecutor may still seek commitment even when a grand jury is in session and a prior attempt to charge the accused had been rejected for lack of probable cause.

Rule

A court of criminal jurisdiction has implied authority to commit or require bail for offenses within its cognizance, even if no statute expressly grants that power to the court as a collective body. Commitment is not solely for the purpose of bringing the accused before a grand jury; it is to subject the accused personally to the judgment of the law, and the power may be exercised so long as necessary to retain the accused for further proceedings.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Richmond, Priya Desai is accused of violating a federal criminal statute. Her lawyer argues that although individual federal judges may issue commitments, the court sitting as a court cannot order commitment because no statute expressly grants that power to the court as a collective body.

How should the court rule?

Explanation. A federal court with criminal cognizance has implied authority to commit or require bail for offenses within its jurisdiction, even if no statute expressly confers that power on the court as a collective body. The majority reasoned that this power is necessary to enable the court to retain an accused person to receive whatever judgment the law may ultimately render.