Morford v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 236,236 |
| Citation | 339 U.S. 258,70 S.Ct. 586,94 L.Ed. 815 |
| Parties | MORFORD v. UNITED STATES. Distributed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs David Rein, Washington, D.C., Abraham J. Isserman, Los Angeles, Cal., Joseph Forer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., Alexander M. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert S. Erdahl, Washington, D.C., for the United States.
In this case the trial court did not permit counsel for petitioner to interrogate prospective government employee jurors upon voir dire examination with specific reference to the possible influence of the 'Loyalty Order,' Executive Order No. 9835, 5 U.S.C.A. § 631 note, on their ability to render a just and impartial verdict. Such questioning was permitted in Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S.Ct. 519; see n. 4 of the Court's opinion, Id., 339 U.S. 170—171, 70 S.Ct. 522.
We said in Dennis that 'Preservation of the opportunity to prove actual bias is a guarantee of a defendant's right to an impartial jury.' Id., 339 U.S. 171—172, 70 S.Ct. 523. Since that opportunity was denied in this case, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs in the reversal of the judgment. Since, however, counsel requested that all government employees be excluded from the jury in these cases, he thinks the request should have been granted for the reasons stated by the dissenting Justices in Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 69 S.Ct. 201, and in Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S.Ct. 519.
Mr. Justice CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Abdullah
...Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 171–72 [70 S.Ct. 519, 523–24, 94 L.Ed. 734, 742–43] (1950) ; Morford v. United States, 339 U.S. 258, 259 [70 S.Ct. 586, 587, 94 L.Ed. 815, 816] (1950). "Voir dire plays a critical function in assuring the criminal defendant that his [constitutional] ri......
-
United States v. Dennis
...asked as to race prejudice, as they were asked here, just as they were asked about any prejudice against Communists. Morford v. United States, 339 U.S. 258, 70 S.Ct. 586, was a very special situation. The trial came up in the District of Columbia and a number of the jurors were government e......
-
Davis v. State
...incline him in favor of recovery of a verdict for the liquidator." Id. at 419, 30 A.2d at 758. See also Morford v. United States, 339 U.S. 258, 70 S.Ct. 586, 94 L.Ed. 815 (1950) (where panel from which the jury was selected consisted of almost entirely government employees, refusal to allow......
-
Quinn v. United States
...judge's action on the supplemental affidavit applied to the first affidavit as well. 21 J.A., p. 65. 22 See Morford v. United States, 1950, 339 U.S. 258, 70 S.Ct. 586, 94 L.Ed. 815. 23 Transcript of Record, p. 27, Dennis v. United States, 1950, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S. Ct. 519, 94 L.Ed. 734. 24 ......
-
The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Criminal Justice
...subject in some con- Clark, Douglas, JJ., not participating. fusion. This is not dispelled by Justice Frank- 73 Morford v. United States, 339 U. S. 258 furter’s express disclaimer that the denial of (1950). certiorari constitutes no approval of the deci- 74 Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 (1......