Case Citator › Lewis v. United States

Lewis v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
146 U.S. 370
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
41 of 41
Citing cases (total)
41
Treatment dates
1970–2012
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Lewis v. United States is limited on its broad statement that a criminal trial cannot continue without the defendant. All 41 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court in Illinois v. Allen expressly rejected that statement as dictum and held that disruptive conduct can forfeit the right to be present. Later courts also declined to extend it to voluntary waiver. Lewis's holding that the accused must be able to participate in jury selection remains cited. The confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

41 later cases cite Lewis v. United States; 41 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Lewis v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court rejected Lewis's broad no-absence dictum and held that a defendant can lose the right to be present through persistent disruptive conduct after a warning.

    Illinois v. Allen · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The broad dicta in Hopt v. Utah, supra, and Lewis v. United States, 146 U. S. 370 (1892), that a trial can never continue in the defendant’s absence have been expressly rejected. Diaz v. United States, 223 U. S. 442 (1912). We accept instead the statement of Mr. Justice Cardozo who, speaking for the Court in Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 106 (1934), said: “No doubt the privilege [of personally confronting witnesses] may be lost by *343consent or at times even by misconduct.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit declined to extend Lewis's no-absence dictum to a defendant's knowing and voluntary waiver of presence during jury selection.

    Campbell v. Blodgett · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Campbell cites two ancient Supreme Court cases, Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S.Ct. 136, 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892), and Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 4 S.Ct. 202, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884), in support of his claim that the right to be present is nonwaivable. In both Lewis and Hopt, the defendants were not permitted to be present at the voir dire, but neither case concerned the issue of waiver. Dicta in the two cases indicated a broad nonwaivable right. ... We are not bound, as Campbell contends, to the broad dicta from Lewis and Hopt that suggests that a defendant's right to be present during voir dire may not be waived.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Eleventh Circuit held that Lewis did not clearly establish a nonwaivable presence right that barred forfeiture in a capital competency claim.

    Moore v. Campbell · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    In Hopt and Lewis, cases which involved capital defendants, the Supreme Court suggested that a nonwaivable right of presence exists generally in a criminal case. Over time, however, the rule announced in these cases has been eroded to an extent that it is no longer clear that they are good law at all.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Illinois Appellate Court declined to extend Lewis's no-waiver language to a defendant who lost the right to attend trial by consent or misconduct.

    People v. Liss · Illinois Appellate Court, Second District · filed

    In so ruling, we note that the defendant cites Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574 (1884), and Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370 (1892), as binding authority for the proposition that a defendant can never waive his right to be present at his trial. However, the language in those cases that supports this argument has been held to be no more than dicta. ... It is well settled that a defendant’s right to be present at his trial may be lost by consent or misconduct.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lewis v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace