Morford v. United States

CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; BLACK; DOUGLAS; CLARK
CitationMorford v. United States, 339 U.S. 258, 94 L.Ed. 815, 70 S.Ct. 586 (1949)
Decision Date09 October 1949
Docket NumberNo. 236,236
PartiesMORFORD v. UNITED STATES. Distributed

Messrs David Rein, Washington, D.C., Abraham J. Isserman, Los Angeles, Cal., Joseph Forer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Messrs. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., Alexander M. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert S. Erdahl, Washington, D.C., for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the trial court did not permit counsel for petitioner to interrogate prospective government employee jurors upon voir dire examination with specific reference to the possible influence of the 'Loyalty Order,' Executive Order No. 9835, 5 U.S.C.A. § 631 note, on their ability to render a just and impartial verdict. Such questioning was permitted in Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S.Ct. 519; see n. 4 of the Court's opinion, Id., 339 U.S. 170—171, 70 S.Ct. 522.

We said in Dennis that 'Preservation of the opportunity to prove actual bias is a guarantee of a defendant's right to an impartial jury.' Id., 339 U.S. 171—172, 70 S.Ct. 523. Since that opportunity was denied in this case, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER concur in the reversal for the reasons expressed in their opinions in Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S.Ct. 519.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs in the reversal of the judgment. Since, however, counsel requested that all government employees be excluded from the jury in these cases, he thinks the request should have been granted for the reasons stated by the dissenting Justices in Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 69 S.Ct. 201, and in ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
57 cases
  • State v. Abdullah
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 2, 2015
    ...Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 171–72 [70 S.Ct. 519, 523–24, 94 L.Ed. 734, 742–43] (1950) ; Morford v. United States, 339 U.S. 258, 259 [70 S.Ct. 586, 587, 94 L.Ed. 815, 816] (1950). "Voir dire plays a critical function in assuring the criminal defendant that his [constitutional] ri......
  • United States v. Dennis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 1, 1950
    ...asked as to race prejudice, as they were asked here, just as they were asked about any prejudice against Communists. Morford v. United States, 339 U.S. 258, 70 S.Ct. 586, was a very special situation. The trial came up in the District of Columbia and a number of the jurors were government e......
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Supreme Court
    • September 1, 1992
    ...incline him in favor of recovery of a verdict for the liquidator." Id. at 419, 30 A.2d at 758. See also Morford v. United States, 339 U.S. 258, 70 S.Ct. 586, 94 L.Ed. 815 (1950) (where panel from which the jury was selected consisted of almost entirely government employees, refusal to allow......
  • Quinn v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 19, 1952
    ...judge's action on the supplemental affidavit applied to the first affidavit as well. 21 J.A., p. 65. 22 See Morford v. United States, 1950, 339 U.S. 258, 70 S.Ct. 586, 94 L.Ed. 815. 23 Transcript of Record, p. 27, Dennis v. United States, 1950, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S. Ct. 519, 94 L.Ed. 734. 24 ......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • INDEX OF CASES
    • United States
    • Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals Chapter XIV
    • Invalid date
    ...Hust v. (328 U. S. 707) 109 Moorehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo (298 U. S. 587, dissent 298 U.S. 618) 66, 190 Morford v. United States (339 U. S. 258) 182 Morgan; United States v. (222 U. S. 274) 256 Morgan; United States v. (313 U. S. 409) 5, 321 Morgan; United States v. (346 U. S. 502) ......
  • Use of essentially historical materials.
    • United States
    • Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals Chapter III
    • Invalid date
    ...fairness—of its result. See Frazier v. United States, 335 U. S. 497; Dennis v. United States 339 U. S. 162; Morford v. United States, 339 U. S. 258. See also the comments in Goebel, Constitutional History and Constitutional Law, 38 Col. L. Rev. 555, especially at 576-577.[201] Haupt v. Unit......
  • The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Criminal Justice
    • United States
    • Sage ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The No. 275-1, May 1951
    • May 1, 1951
    ...subject in some con- Clark, Douglas, JJ., not participating. fusion. This is not dispelled by Justice Frank- 73 Morford v. United States, 339 U. S. 258 furter’s express disclaimer that the denial of (1950). certiorari constitutes no approval of the deci- 74 Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 (1......