18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153 (1820)
The indictment against Smith was founded upon the act of Congress of March 3, 1819, which provided that any person committing piracy as defined by the law of nations on the high seas, if brought into or found in the United States, shall be punished with death upon conviction.1
Smith was tried before the circuit court of the United States for the district of Virginia.2 The jury returned a special verdict finding the prisoner guilty of the plunder and robbery charged in the indictment.3 The verdict further established that Smith and his associates were freebooters upon the sea at the time of the offense, not under the acknowledged authority or deriving protection from the flag or commission of any government.4
The judges of the circuit court divided in opinion upon the questions presented.5 They certified the questions to the Supreme Court of the United States.6 The Supreme Court heard argument on February 21, 1820, and rendered its decision on February 25, 1820.7
Whether the act of Congress of March 3, 1819, which punishes any person who commits piracy as defined by the law of nations on the high seas, constitutes a constitutional exercise of the power to define and punish piracies?8
Yes. The 1819 statute employs the phrase piracy as defined by the law of nations.11 That phrase is a term of known and determinate meaning drawn from jurists, maritime practice, and universal condemnation of sea robbery.12 The indictment against Smith was founded directly on this enactment for conduct on the high seas.13
The special verdict returned by the jury in the circuit court for the district of Virginia found the prisoner guilty of the plunder and robbery charged.14 It also established that he and his associates acted as freebooters without governmental authority or protection.15
The act of Congress constitutes a valid constitutional exercise of the power to define and punish piracies.16
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Livingston dissented on the ground that the constitutional clause requiring Congress to define piracy could not be satisfied by a bare reference to the law of nations.17 The law of nations lacked a single precise and universally accepted definition of the offense.18 The framers conferred the power to define on the national legislature precisely to remove such uncertainty in a capital case.19
Livingston stressed that Congress must incorporate an explicit statutory definition stated in terms within the act itself.20 Otherwise citizens would be forced to consult foreign commentators and codes to learn the elements of a crime punishable by death.21 Such legislation fails to supply the precise and accurate information that every legislature owes to those subject to its criminal laws.22
He therefore concluded that judgment on the special verdict ought to be rendered for the prisoner.23
Whether the special verdict contains sufficient facts upon which the court can pronounce that the prisoner is guilty of piracy?24
A special verdict supplies an adequate factual basis for a judicial determination of piracy under the law of nations.25 The verdict must find the defendant guilty of the plunder and robbery charged in the indictment.26 It must additionally establish that the offenders were freebooters on the sea without authority or protection from any government.27
Yes. The special verdict explicitly found Smith guilty of the plunder and robbery alleged in the indictment.28 It further found that he and his associates were freebooters upon the sea not under the acknowledged authority or deriving protection from the flag or commission of any government.29 These facts align precisely with the definition of piracy as robbery on the high seas committed without sovereign sanction.30
The special verdict contains sufficient facts to support a judicial pronouncement that the prisoner committed piracy.31