Carpenter v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 7117.,7117. |
| Citation | 100 F.2d 716,69 App. DC 306 |
| Parties | CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
John Edgar Chadwick and J. Frank O'Brien, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
David A. Pine, U. S. Atty., and Roger Robb, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before GRONER, C. J., and MILLER and VINSON, JJ.
Appellant was indicted for perjury and convicted in the District Court. He seeks a reversal, first, because the trial court refused to declare a mistrial for alleged misstatements of a juror on his voir dire; second, because the court imposed sentence under the District of Columbia perjury statute instead of under the Federal statute.
The facts relied upon to sustain the first point are the following: When twelve prospective jurors were in the box, the district attorney arose and stated to them that the defendant was represented by Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Burnett; that the government was represented by himself and Mr. Jackson; and that the government expected to call witnesses whom he would ask to stand as he called their names. He then called the names of numerous witnesses and, turning to the jury box, said, "I will ask you whether you know any of the people whose names I have called, including Carpenter, the defendant; and any of the witnesses, or any of the people who are involved in the case in which the perjury is charged to have been committed?" There was no response. After a jury had been selected and impaneled and a considerable portion of the evidence for the government heard, counsel for defendant went to the bench and in the presence of counsel for the government asked the court to declare a mistrial and continue the case on the ground that a juror, Kaufman, knew and was known to them and had testified some four or five years previously in a case in which one of them had sought to impeach Kaufman's veracity. Both of counsel stated that when the jury was selected, they did not recognize the juror as the witness in the former case, and were not sure of his identity until the midday recess. Counsel did not then allege or attempt to show any bias on the part of the juror against either counsel or defendant, nor was there anything to show that the juror had recognized counsel any more than counsel had recognized him. On the showing made Judge Adkins denied the motion.
There was a verdict of guilty, and on a motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fugate v. Gaffney
...United States, C.A.5, 1940, 109 F.2d 181, 196; Evans v. State of Arizona, C.A.9, 1969, 410 F.2d 1122, 1124; Carpenter v. United States, 1938, 69 App. D.C. 306, 100 F.2d 716, 717. 19 Miss Fugate gave similar testimony at her 20 On March 8, 1958, by agreement, the preliminary hearing was cont......
-
Marshall v. United States
...Co. of America v. Carver, 257 F.2d 111 (10th Cir. 1958), nor did he dishonestly "conceal a material fact," Carpenter v. United States, 69 App.D.C. 306, 100 F.2d 716, 717 (1938). Appellant urges that this court's opinion in Cavness v. United States, 187 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1951), "does not de......
-
U.S. v. Moss
...court must grant a new trial. Daniels v. United States,123 U.S.App.D.C. 127, 131, 357 F.2d 587, 591 (1966); Carpenter v. United States, 69 U.S.App.D.C. 306, 100 F.2d 716, 717 (1938); Williams v. United States, 418 F.2d 372, 377 (10th Cir. 1969). In the instant case, however, there is absolu......
-
Daniels v. United States
...466 (1960). 4 E. g., Ryan v. United States, 89 U.S.App. D.C. 328, 331-332, 191 F.2d 779, 782-783 (1951); Carpenter v. United States, 69 App.D.C. 306, 307, 100 F.2d 716, 717 (1938); Consolidated Gas & Equip. Co. v. Carver, 257 F.2d 111, 115-116 (10th Cir. 1958). Cf., D.C.Code § 23-108 (1961)......