Leonard v. United States
| Citation | 378 U.S. 544,12 L.Ed.2d 1028,84 S.Ct. 1696 |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | M,No. 1017,1017 |
| Parties | Andrew J. LEONARD v. UNITED STATES. isc |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
John G. Clancy, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, for the United States.
Petitioner was convicted in separate trials and by different juries of forging and uttering endorsements on government checks, 18 U.S.C. § 495, and of transportation of a forged instrument in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The two cases were tried in succession. The jury in the case tried first—forging and uttering endorsements—announced its guilty verdict in open court in the presence of the jury panel from which the jurors who were to try the second case—transportation of a forged instrument—were selected. Petitioner immediately objected to selecting a jury for the second case from among members of the panel who had heard the guilty verdict in the first case. The objection was overruled, and the actual jury which found petitioner guilty in the second case contained five jurors who had heard the verdict in the first case. The conviction in the second case was affirmed on appeal, 324 F.2d 914, and petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari.
The Solicitor General, in his brief filed in this Court, states that:
'The procedure followed by the district court in selecting the jury was, in our view, plainly erroneous.
Prospective jurors who have sat in the courtroom and heard a verdict returned against a man charged with crime in a similar case immediately prior to the trial of another indictment against him should be automatically disqualified from serving at the second trial, if the objection is raised at the outset.'
We agree that under the circumstances of this case the trial court erred in denying petitioner's objection. Accordingly the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Easley
...for having participated in, or been present at, defendant's prior conviction of a similar offense. (Leonard v. United States (1964) 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028; Donovan v. Davis (4th Cir.1977) 558 F.2d 201; Government of Virgin Islands v. Parrott (3d Cir.1977) 551 F.2d 553,......
-
Dehenre v. King
...U.S. 209, 102 S.Ct. 940(holding bias could not be imputed to juror applying for a job in the prosecutor's office); Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d (1964) (per curiam) (granting habeas relief to a petitioner with successive trials, where the second jury was ......
-
State v. Lankford, Docket No. 35617
...the same crime creates an implied bias and constitutes fundamental error because it is inherently prejudicial. Leonard v. United States , 378 U.S. 544, 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028, 1028 (1964) (per curiam) (recognizing that a jury containing jurors that had previously heard a ......
-
State v. Lankford
...an implied bias and constitutes fundamental error because it is inherently prejudicial. Leonard v. United States , 378 U.S. 544, 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028, 1028 (1964) (per curiam) (recognizing that a jury containing jurors that had previously heard a defendant pronounced gu......
-
Jury Selection and the Coase Theorem
...or the criminal transaction, or that the juror was a witness or somehow involved in the criminal transaction.”); Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 544–45 (1964) (per curiam) (holding that prospective jurors who heard trial court announce defendant’s guilty verdict in first trial are d......
-
Should the Supreme Court stop inviting amici curiae to defend abandoned lower court decisions?
...Nancy Blodgett, Solicitor General: Has Office Been Politicized?, A.B.A. J., May 1, 1986, at 20. (70.) See, e.g., Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 544-45 (1964) (per (71.) See, e.g., Frankel v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 72, 72 (2009) (mem.); Brief for the United States at 19, Frankel,......