U.S. v. Martin
| Decision Date | 20 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-5684,83-5684 |
| Citation | 757 F.2d 770 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald L. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
T. Woody Smith (argued), Greeneville, Tenn., Carl R. Ogle, Jr. (argued), Jefferson City, Tenn., Charles E. Fraley, Rutledge, Tenn., for defendant-appellant.
John W. Gill, Jr., U.S. Atty., Greeneville, Tenn., Guy Blackwell (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KENNEDY and JONES, Circuit Judges and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
In our opinion of July 17, 1984, United States of America v. Martin, 740 F.2d 1352 (6th Cir.1984), we remanded this case to the District Court to determine whether any members of the jury inadvertently overheard the judge's comment on defendant Martin's guilt, made at a side bar conference. Another District Judge has now conducted that evidentiary hearing and submitted his factual finding that one of the twelve jurors, who participated in the verdict, heard the remark. This juror was seated in the front row of the jury box. The Court found that the remaining jurors did not hear the remark. The District Court also found that the remark had not been discussed by the jurors during their deliberation.
Counsel for defendant Martin, as well as counsel for defendant Weems, concede that they were aware at the time the remark was made that it was likely that it had been heard by one or more members of the jury. Yet counsel did not call the problem to the attention of the District Judge. They made no objection and no motion for mistrial, but permitted the case to go to the jury which returned verdicts of guilty.
The error here could have readily been corrected had counsel voiced an objection at the time. A strong cautionary instruction could have been given. Moreover, the jury included two alternate jurors. An immediate inquiry as to whether the jurors heard the remark would have revealed, as did the evidentiary hearing on remand, that only one juror had heard the remark. The juror could easily have been excused and an alternate juror substituted.
It was counsel's obligation to interpose a timely objection. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the objection. United States v. Grosso, 358 F.2d 154, 158 (3d Cir.1966), rev'd on other grounds, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); United States v. Gersh, 328 F.2d 460 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Mugnola v. United States, 377 U.S. 992, 84 S.Ct. 1919, 12 L.Ed.2d 1045 (1964).
Defendant Martin argues that the court's remark was plain error under Rule 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which empowers us to consider the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adkisson
...160, 56 S.Ct. at 392, 80 L.Ed. at 557.58 United States v. Young, 470 U.S. at 15, 105 S.Ct. at 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d at 12; United States v. Martin, 757 F.2d 770, 771 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1029, 105 S.Ct. 3506, 87 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985); State v. David L. Hassell, supra. In Kessler v. St......
-
In re Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
...it complain about its status prior to the verdict. Such silence would likewise constitute a waiver of the alleged error. U.S. v. Martin, 757 F.2d 770, 771 (6th Cir.1985) The appointment of Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel Committee in this case was a valid exercise of the Court's managerial power. ......
-
U.S. v. Chanthadara
...conspiracy, did not warrant a new trial); United States v. Martin, 740 F.2d 1352, 1357 (6th Cir. 1984), appeal after remand, 757 F.2d 770 (6th Cir. 1985) (concluding that judge's remark at bench conference that the defendant was guilty, overheard by one juror, did not constitute plain In th......
-
U.S. v. Bailey
...discretionary power to review only if 'the failure to do so would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice.' United States v. Martin, 757 F.2d 770, 771 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1029 (1985). See United States v. Young, 105 S. Ct. 1038, 1046-47 (1985); United States ......
-
Introduction to evidentiary foundations
...view of the judicial proceedings. For further information on the harmless error doctrine, see §135 infra . Cases United States v. Martin , 757 F.2d 770 (6th Cir.), cert. denied , 472 U.S. 1029 (1985). An appellate court’s review of the plain error doctrine is discretionary ; in determining ......
-
Introduction to evidentiary foundations
...view of the judicial proceedings. For further information on the harmless error doctrine, see §135 infra . Cases United States v. Martin , 757 F.2d 770 (6th Cir.), cert. denied , 472 U.S. 1029 (1985). An appellate court’s review of the plain error doctrine is discretionary ; in determining ......
-
Introduction to Evidentiary Foundations
...view of the judicial proceedings. For further information on the harmless error doctrine, see §135 infra . Cases United States v. Martin , 757 F.2d 770 (6th Cir.), cert. denied , 472 U.S. 1029 (1985). An appellate court’s review of the plain error doctrine is discretionary ; in determining ......
-
Tactics
...view of the judicial proceedings. For further information on the harmless error doctrine, see §135 infra . Cases United States v. Martin , 757 F.2d 770 (6th Cir.), cert. denied , 472 U.S. 1029 (1985). An appellate court’s review of the plain error doctrine is discretionary ; in determining ......