U.S. v. Jones, 83-5052

• Decision Date: 29 February 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-5052,83-5052
• Citation: U.S. v. Jones, 722 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1984)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric H. JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 528

722 F.2d 528

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Eric H. JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83-5052.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 9, 1983.

Decided Dec. 21, 1983.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Feb. 29, 1984.

Irene Ayala, Daniel G. Clement, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Veronica Sanchez-Villasenor, Student, Howard W. Gillingham, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, NORRIS, Circuit Judge, and SPENCER WILLIAMS, District Judge^*.

PER CURIAM:

Jones appeals his conviction for postal robbery, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2114, contending that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct specific voir dire questioning on the defense of coercion.We hold such questioning was not required, and therefore affirm.

Jones and co-defendantLanny D. Sturgell were indicted for the robbery of the Aguangua, California, Post Office.

Defense counsel requested that the trial court ask prospective jurors during voir dire whether they were biased against the defense of coercion.¹The court declined to do so.

Jones' primary defense at trial was coercion.He requested and received a jury instruction on that defense, the adequacy of which he does not challenge.

The trial court is given wide latitude to determine how best to conduct the voir dire.Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 189, 101 S.Ct. 1629, 1634, 68 L.Ed.2d 22(1981)(plurality opinion).Failure to ask specific questions will be reversed only for abuse of this discretion.Abuse of discretion will be found, however, if the questioning is not reasonably sufficient to test the jury for bias or partiality.United States v. Baldwin, 607 F.2d 1295, 1297(9th Cir.1979).

The trial court is vested with discretion, not only to see that the voir dire is effective in obtaining an impartial jury but also "to see that this result is obtained with reasonable expedition.""The Jury System in the Federal Courts,"Report of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Operation of the Jury System, 26 F.R.D. 409, 465-66(1960).For this reason, the trial court may refuse voir dire questioning which is tied to prejudice only speculatively.

In United States v. Robinson, 475 F.2d 376, 380-81(D.C.Cir.1973), the court, stressing that the trial court's exercise of discretion is limited by the need to "assure a fair trial by an impartial jury," identified three instances in which there is a real possibility of prejudice and a consequent need for specific voir dire questioning: (1) When the case carries racial overtones (Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 311-15, 51 S.Ct. 470, 471-73, 75 L.Ed. 1054(1931)); (2) when the case"involves other matters concerning which either the local community or the population at large is commonly known to harbor strong feelings that may stop short of presumptive bias in law yet significantly skew deliberations in fact"(prejudice against the insanity defense, for example, United States v. Allsup, 566 F.2d 68, 70(9th Cir.1977)); or (3) when the case involves other forms of bias and distorting influence which have become evident through experience with juries (the tendency of some jurors to overvalue the testimony of government agents acting in their official capacity, for example, United States v. Baldwin, 607 F.2d 1295, 1297(9th Cir.1979)).As to other matters, however, the party requesting specific voir dire questioning...