Davis v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 6208.,6208. |
| Citation | 47 F.2d 1071 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. UNITED STATES. In re DAVIS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Jesse E. Martin and Wm. J. Berne, both of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.
Norman A. Dodge, U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
After the appeal to this court was perfected, leave was sought by the appellant to file a motion for a new trial in the District Court because of alleged misconduct of the trial jury. Following the practice established in Perry v. United States, 39 F. (2d) 52, we directed that the evidence relied on to support the motion be taken before the trial judge under cross-examination and submitted to our consideration. This has been done. The evidence consists only of the testimony of two of the jurors to the effect that in the jury room, while considering the case, the fact that the defendant had not taken the witness stand in his defense was by at least three jurors brought into discussion as indicating guilt, and that that fact had weight with the two jurors testifying in concluding that he was guilty. They testified that they had not heard the instruction of the court that they should not discuss or consider the failure of the defendant to testify. We must sustain the contention made in behalf of the United States that this showing is wholly insufficient as the basis for a grant of a new trial. As a matter of public policy, a juror will not generally be heard to impeach his verdict by testifying to his own misconduct or that of his colleagues. McDonald v. Pless, 238 U. S. 264, 35 S. Ct. 783, 59 L. Ed. 1300; Lancaster v. United States (C. C. A.) 39 F.(2d) 30. The precise question here raised, whether a juror may testify that improper argument was made by jurors in the jury room, and that it had effect in forming the verdict, was answered in the negative in Williams v. United States (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 933. See, also, Salibo v. United States (C. C. A., No. 5752), 46 F.(2d) 790, present term.
It appearing that there is no evidence on which a new trial could properly be awarded, we decline to remit the case to the District Court for the purpose of filing and considering the motion.
* Rehearing denied May 5, 1931.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Marshall, 94-1666-IEG (POR).
... ... Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent ... No. 94-1666-IEG (POR) ... United States District Court, S.D. California ... October 7, 1996 ... Page 1522 ... COPYRIGHT ... denied, 439 U.S. 834, 99 S.Ct. 115, 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978); Davis ... ...
-
Tanner v. United States
... ... Courts wisely have treated allegations of a juror's inability to hear or comprehend at trial as an internal matter. See Government of the Virgin Islands v. Nicholas, 759 F.2d 1073 (CA3 1985); Davis v. United States, 47 F.2d 1071 (CA5 1931) (rejecting juror testimony impeaching verdict, including testimony that jurors had not heard a particular instruction of the court) ... Most significant for the present case, however, is the fact that lower federal courts treated ... ...
-
Brown v. United States
... ... Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 12021, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987); see also Davis v. United States, 47 F.2d 1071, 1072 (5th Cir.1931) (stating common law rule against impeachment of verdict). Rule 606(b) is reason enough that the district court would not have admitted the affidavit and operates altogether independent of whether Brown's counsel was conflicted. Quite simply, it ... ...
-
Evalt v. United States
... ... United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 228; Bryson v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 657. Compare Klimes v. United States, 1959, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 263 F.2d 273; United States v. Grieco, 2 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 414; Stephenson v. Steinhauer, 8 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 432, 439; Davis v. United States, 5 Cir., 1931, 47 F.2d 1071; State v. Gardner, 1962, 230 Or. 569, 371 P.2d 558. Under most of the foregoing cases, the affidavits would probably be both inadmissible and insufficient to impeach the verdict if admitted. We cite them only as illustrating that our view as to the ... ...