United States v. Reid

Supreme Court of the United States · 1852 · Evidence

53 U.S. 361 (1852)

Overruled by Rosen v. United States (1918)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencefederal criminal evidenceRules of Decision ActJudiciary Act of 1789state lawcompetency of witnessesjointly indicted codefendantjuror affidavits

Facts

Reid and Clements were jointly indicted for murder committed on the high seas aboard an American ship, but were separately tried by permission of the court. At Reid's trial, he sought to call Clements as a witness in his defense, and the court excluded the testimony because Clements was jointly indicted with him. After Reid was found guilty, he moved for a new trial, also offering affidavits from two jurors stating that they had looked at a newspaper containing a report of the evidence during the trial or deliberations. The jurors swore the newspaper had no influence on their verdict, and one said it merely refreshed his memory.

Issue

Does the Rules of Decision provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 make a post-1789 Virginia statute on witness competency applicable in a federal criminal prosecution, so that a jointly indicted codefendant not jointly tried may testify? Do juror affidavits stating that jurors read a newspaper account of the evidence, but that it had no influence on the verdict, entitle the defendant to a new trial?

Rule

The Rules of Decision provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 extends only to civil cases at common law, not to criminal prosecutions in the courts of the United States. In federal criminal cases, absent contrary congressional legislation, admissibility of testimony is determined by the law in force in the respective states when the federal courts were established in 1789; no state law enacted after 1789 can alter federal criminal procedure or evidence. Juror affidavits should be received with great caution, and in any event facts that show no influence on the verdict do not warrant a new trial.

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 a federal prosecution in Charleston, South Carolina, Noah Mercer is charged with a federal counterfeiting offense. He seeks to call Lena Ortiz, a separately tried codefendant, relying on a South Carolina statute enacted in 1846 that makes such a witness competent despite interest in the case.

Which is the strongest argument against admitting Lena's testimony?

Explanation. The majority held that the Rules of Decision provision does not govern federal criminal prosecutions. Absent contrary congressional legislation, admissibility of testimony in federal criminal cases is governed by the law of the state as it existed when the federal courts were established in 1789, not by later state enactments. Therefore the 1846 state statute would not control.