People v. Schneider
Decision Date | 05 June 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 66.,66. |
Citation | 14 N.W.2d 819,309 Mich. 158 |
Parties | PEOPLE v. SCHNEIDER. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ray D. Schneider was convicted of accepting a bribe, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Recorder's Court for City of Detroit; John J. Maher, judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Frank G. Schemanske, of Detroit, for appellant, Ray D. Schneider.
Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen. of Michigan, Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen. of Michigan, of Lansing, and William E. Dowling, Pros. Atty., of Wayne County, and John W. Gilmore and Henrietta E. Rosenthal, Asst. Pros. Attys., all of Detroit, for the People.
Defendant, one of the county auditors of Wayne county, was arrested, charged and convicted of the crime of accepting a bribe, contrary to the provisions of section 118 of the penal code, Act No. 328, chap. 17, § 118, Pub.Acts 1931 (Comp.Laws Supp.1940, § 17115-118, Stat.Ann. § 28.313). The information charged defendant with receiving money from Edgar M. Robbins in pursuance of an unlawful agreement and understanding that his vote, opinion, judgment or influence would favor the awarding of contracts of insurance to the said Edgar M. Robbins. The cause was set for trial for September 16, 1942, but a mistrial was declared on September 21, 1942, by reason of the following article appearing in the Detroit Free Press, a newspaper published in the city of Detroit:
‘Good Money After Bad
On October 4, 1942, a day before the trial of defendant was to commence, the Detroit News, a newspaper published in the city of Detroit, published the following editorial:
‘Michigan Voters Are Asked to Help Wayne's Program
‘Once again we appeal to all decent, law-respecting out-State voters for their support of Proposal No. 2, the amendment to give Wayne county a chance to reform its government.
‘Voters like you often have been disgusted by political goings-on in Wayne.
‘Rest assured you have not been alone in that feeling, which is shared here in Wayne county by good citizens like yourselves. Long ago the decent citizens of Wayne recognized the need for reform, as well as the kind of reform needed. Two attempts have been made to get a more responsible form of government, both wrecked by political shysters aided, as it developed, by your indifference out-State.
‘With the present attempt, we in Wayne county feel it is now or never. The Judge Ferguson grant jury just has finished turning up evidence of county graft that is a stench in the nostrils of all Michigan. Two auditors, a sheriff and a prosecutor have been convicted, as well as a number of lesser officials and former officials.
‘We in Wayne county feel that if this will not arouse the out-State voter to come to our assistance, nothing will. Here is the clinching evidence that our big industrial county, with its more than 2,000,000 population, simply can not have proper government with the present governmental forms.
‘Maybe the present form gives reasonable satisfaction in YOUR county. It doesn't here. Here it means a board of supervisors bigger than most state legislatures. It means a dozen ‘executives' to be voted on, whom not one voter in a thousand can name, let alone keep track of. Here on Wayne this is a set-up for corrupt machine government, and that is what we get.
‘Ask those people why, then, they are so eager to beat Wayne's amendment!
.
On October 5, 1942, counsel for defendant moved for an adjournment because of the proximity of the date of the trial to the date of the Detroit Free Press article and the Detroit News editorial. At the request of the trial court all members of the jury were questioned in their voir dire examination with regard to the above articles, and all denied any prejudice as a result of reading or hearing about the articles. The motion for adjournment was denied and the cause proceeded to trial, resulting in conviction of defendant. Defendant appeals and complains that he was not accorded a fair trial by reason of the trial having taken place so soon after the publication of the above articles; that it was error to offer and receive in evidence certain exhibits which were expense accounts of defendant as a candidate for county auditor; and for failure to give an instruction, later referred to.
It is to be noted that before a jury was selected the trial judge made the following statement: ‘The court will not proceed with the trial if we cannot find a jury of twelve people who are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Harvey
...that they could try the case impartially, even if they had previously formed opinions from exposure to publicity. People v. Schneider, 309 Mich. 158, 164, 14 N.W.2d 819 (1944). In this case, both jurors specifically responded that they could base their decisions strictly on the evidence. Th......
-
People v. Gibbs
...a change of venue will be granted when a community is so aroused that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had. People v. Schneider, 309 Mich. 158, 164, 14 N.W.2d 819 (1944). Newspaper reports, however, are ordinarily regarded as too unreliable to influence a fairminded juror when called up......
-
People v. Pearson
...have read of the case at bar, without more, does not disqualify them as jurors or deny the defendant a fair trial, People v. Schneider (1944), 309 Mich. 158, 14 N.W.2d 819; People v. Dailey (1967), 6 Mich.App. 99, 148 N.W.2d 209, and further we find in statutory language that a juror who ha......
-
People v. Fitzsimmons
...138 N.W. 662,People v. Connors, 251 Mich. 99, syllabus (5), 230 N.W. 931;People v. Raider, 256 Mich. 131, 134, 239 N.W. 387;People v. Schneider, 309 Mich. 158, syllabus (2), 14 N.W.2d 819. There is no occasion to determine whether Judge Carr was disqualified to pass upon the motion. Defenda......