Sellers v. United States, 14632.
| Decision Date | 17 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 14632.,14632. |
| Citation | 106 US App. DC 209,271 F.2d 475 |
| Parties | Donald V. SELLERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. John W. Warner, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted of violation of statutes relating to marihuana1 and dangerous drugs.2 His conviction was based upon the testimony of an undercover police officer who had befriended him.
One of the many allegations of error relates to the voir dire upon which the court alone interrogated the jurors. At the conclusion of its examination, defense counsel requested the court to ask whether "any of the jurors are inclined to give more weight to the testimony of a police officer merely because he is a police officer than any other witness in the case?" (Emphasis supplied.) The court denied the request. We hold this is reversible error requiring a new trial.
A trial court's "broad discretion as to the questions to be asked" on voir dire is "subject to the essential demands of fairness." Aldridge v. United States, 1931, 283 U.S. 308, 310, 51 S.Ct. 470, 471, 75 L.Ed. 1054. In the recent case of Chavez v. United States, 10 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 816, 819, certiorari denied sub nom. Tenorio v. United States, 1959, 359 U.S. 916, 79 S.Ct. 592, 3 L.Ed.2d 577, it was pointed out that a "defendant cannot be fairly tried by a juror who would be inclined to give unqualified credence to a law enforcement officer simply because he is an officer."3
In the present case the Government concedes that the voir dire had by no means been unduly protracted. The police officer's testimony was virtually the entire case for the prosecution. In these circumstances, the refusal to question the jurors in accordance with defense counsel's request constituted an abuse of discretion.
Since the other questions raised on this appeal may not recur in a new trial, we do not consider them.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Parson v. Anderson
...in some contexts for a trial court to refuse to question prospective jurors on this subject when requested. Sellers v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 209, 271 F. 2d 475 (1959); Brown v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 203, 338 F.2d 543 (1964). Here the trial court did permit questioning in......
-
United States v. Peterson
...S.Ct. at 471. Accord, United States v. Robinson, supra note 27, 154 U.S.App.D.C. at 269, 475 F.2d at 380; Sellers v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 209, 210, 271 F.2d 475, 476 (1959). 29 The judge stated that the first two questions would be accommodated by instructions to the jurors, and ......
-
Moore v. State, No. 27, September Term, 2009 (Md. App. 2/26/2010), 27, September Term, 2009.
...trial court's inquiry, during voir dire, into whether a venireperson would give more weight to the testimony of a police officer. In Sellers v. United States, for example, a narcotics case, the appellate court held that the trial court erred in declining "to make inquiry on voir dire as to ......
-
State v. Manley
... ... on police confession-taking techniques, had come down from the United States Supreme Court just two weeks before Manley's confession was taken ... 592, 3 L.Ed.2d 577 (1958); such qualifying language approved in Sellers v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C ... Page 286 ... 209, 271 F.2d 475 ... ...