UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

1. The constitutional provision (Art. I. Sec. 10) forbidding the states to pass ex post facto laws was intended to secure substantial personal rights against arbitrary and oppressive legislation, and not to limit the legislative control of remedies and modes of procedure which do not affect matters of substance. P. 269 U. S. 171.

2. An Ohio law providing that, when two or more persons were jointly indicted for a felony, on application to the court, each should be tried separately, was amended so as to require a joint trial unless the court should order otherwise for good cause shown. Held that the amendment was not an ex post facto law within the constitutional restriction, as applied to persons who were indicted after, clubjuris

Page 269 U. S. 168

for an offense alleged to have been committed before, the date of the amendment. P. 269 U. S. 170.

111 Ohio St. 838, id., 839, affirmed.

Error to judgments of the Supreme Court of Ohio affirming convictions of embezzlement. The cases are disposed of here on motions to dismiss or affirm.