Smith v. United States, 7721
| Decision Date | 16 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | 7722.,No. 7721,7721 |
| Citation | 262 F.2d 50 |
| Parties | Ernest SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Beatrice K. BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
L. W. Holt, Norfolk, Va., for appellants.
John M. Hollis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va. (L. S. Parsons, Jr., U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and HARRY E. WATKINS, District Judge.
The appellants were convicted in separate jury trials of forging and uttering government checks. The District Court denied a motion to appeal in forma pauperis, but leave was given by this Court to proceed in forma pauperis and the cases were heard here on their merits. Because a single issue is involved in each case, they were heard together.
The appellants are each Negroes. At their respective trials in June, 1958, at Norfolk, Virginia, counsel for Appellant Brown asked prospective jurors on the voir dire examination the following question: "Are there any members of the jury panel who are a member of any organizations dedicated toward racial hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan, White Citizen's Council, or similar organizations?" The same lawyer at the trial of Appellant Smith asked prospective jurors on their voir dire examination the question: "Is there anybody on the jury panel who is a member of the White Citizen's Council, Defenders of State Sovereignty, or any similar organization?" The Court would not permit the prospective jurors to answer either question. Instead, the Court asked the general question as to whether any juror was sensible to any bias or prejudice which would, in any way, prevent such juror from giving to both the United States and the defendant a fair and impartial trial and a true verdict render according to the law and evidence. The failure of the trial Court to permit prospective jurors to answer the specific question as to membership in these organizations is assigned as reversible error.
The government says that the trial judge has a broad discretion in questions permitted on voir dire examination, and that the general question as to prejudice was sufficient. The appellants say that they are entitled to know the specific facts relating to membership in these organizations in order to intelligently exercise their peremptory challenges, and that the general question as to whether the juror...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bowe
...a more detailed inquiry concerning their associations. Furthermore, under the circumstances, appellants' reliance on Smith v. United States, 262 F.2d 50 (4th Cir. 1958), is misplaced. There, the Negro defendants requested the trial judge to ask the prospective jurors whether any of them wer......
-
State v. Hills
...175 So. 603. Counsel for the defendant cite the cases of Smith v. United States, and Brown v. United States (decided in one opinion), 4 Cir., 262 F.2d 50, in which the United States Court of Appeals held that counsel for appellants should have been permitted by the trial judge to ask prospe......
-
United States v. Brewer
...United States v. Napoleone, 349 F.2d 350 (3d Cir.); Sellers v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 209, 271 F.2d 475, and Smith v. United States, 262 F.2d 50 (4th Cir.). 2 Appellant testified that he purchased the car the last part of December or the first part of January and paid for it out of......
-
Nimmons v. S.C. Dep't of Corr.
...on July 17, 2015. Id. The Fourth Circuit has recognized that the KKK is a group dedicated to racial hate. See Smith v. United States, 262 F.2d 50, 50 (4th Cir. 1958). Thus, Plaintiff has at least presented a jury question regarding whether she engaged in a protected activity when she report......