Beatty v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 5143.,5143. |
| Citation | 27 F.2d 323 |
| Parties | BEATTY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Charles A. Higgs, of Bay City, Mich., for plaintiff in error.
C. Frederic Stanton, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich. (John R. Watkins, U. S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and HICKS, Circuit Judges.
Beatty and his brother, in partnership or as cotenants, were operating a farm. On this farm the business of manufacturing intoxicating liquor was carried on, the still and other apparatus and materials being kept in the barn. The brother admitted responsibility. The respondent pleaded not guilty to an indictment with several counts, but was convicted of maintaining a nuisance. U. S. C. tit. 27, § 33 (27 USCA § 33).
The conviction must be affirmed, but the record discloses what we think is a misapprehension as to the practice. Upon examination of the jury by the judge, respondent's counsel proposed six questions which he wished to have put. The request was declined, and the judge asked questions which he thought covered the ground of these requests, so far as they were proper. The matter was apparently regarded by counsel, and perhaps by the trial judge, as if the criterion were whether the questions suggested, if answered in one way, would disclose grounds for challenge for cause, overlooking the right of respondent to get information aiding him to determine whether he wished to make a peremptory challenge. Obviously the quest for this information is subject to the reasonable discretion of the trial judge, and cannot be carried too far without minimizing the good effect of examination by the judge, instead of by counsel; but a reasonable amount of such inquiry in aid of the right of peremptory challenge should be permitted, and we think one of these questions was of that permissible character. It inquired whether any member of the jury was a member of or contributed to any organization for the purpose of enforcing the prohibition law. In Remus v. United States, 291 F. 501, 507, we held that an affirmative answer to this question would not disclose legal basis for challenge for cause; but, quite plainly, it would be a natural inducement as to the exercise of a peremptory challenge. While it would not be presumed that a juror would have, from such association, any prejudice which would prevent him from obeying the instructions of the court, yet we must regard such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miller, 6633
...might intelligently exercise his peremptory challenge or challenge for cause, as the facts developed might warrant." See also: Beatty v. United States, 27 F.2d 323; People v. Reyes, 5 Cal. 347; Menefee State, 30 Okla. Crim. 400, 236 P. 439; Cummings v. State, 32 Okla. Crim. 274, 240 P. 1078......
-
U.S. v. Barnes
...v. Van Schaik, 347 F.2d 775, 779-80 (3d Cir. 1965); Bailey v. United States, 53 F.2d 982, 984 (5th Cir. 1931); Beatty v. United States, 27 F.2d 323, 324 (6th Cir. 1928). This reflects the very nature of the peremptory challenge a challenge "exercised on grounds normally thought irrelevant t......
-
Kiernan v. Van Schaik, 15076.
...Comfort v. Mosser, 121 Pa. 455, 464-466, 15 A. 612 (1888); Bailey v. United States, 53 F.2d 982, 983-984 (5 Cir. 1931); Beatty v. United States, 27 F.2d 323 (6 Cir. 1928); Armborst v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 25 F.2d 240 (6 Cir. 8 United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 57 S.Ct. 177, 81 L.Ed. ......
-
United States v. Annunziato
...any of the panel were members of or contributors to any organization having law enforcement as its object. He relies on Beatty v. United States, 6 Cir., 1928, 27 F.2d 323 and Bailey v. United States, 5 Cir., 1931, 53 F.2d 982, holding that defendants accused of operating stills during the p......