United States v. Brown
| Decision Date | 22 August 1951 |
| Docket Number | Crim. A. No. 2464. |
| Citation | 99 F. Supp. 527 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BROWN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
John R. Connolly, Asst. U. S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, George Apostol, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.
Kay & Robison and Roger Cremo, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendant.
The principal ground urged in support of the defendant's motion for a new trial is that a communication made by the bailiff to the jury during its deliberations coerced it into reaching a verdict.
The jury received the case at about 3 p. m. August 6 and returned a verdict at 11:15 the next morning. Upon being polled, each juror responded that the verdict returned was his verdict. Thereafter, in a manner condemned in Rakes v. United States, 4 Cir., 169 F.2d 739, 745, the defense succeeded in obtaining the information set forth in support of its motion. Undoubtedly evidence of some irregularity can be unearthed in every case by subjecting the jury to this kind of inquisition. It is a reprehensible practice that does much to perpetuate the sporting theory of justice which characterizes criminal trials, to the shame of the Courts. From the affidavits of the jurors and the trial Judge, it appears that at 9 a. m., August 7, a juror asked the bailiff to tell the Judge that the jury was unable to agree, which the bailiff did; but it further appears that the Judge's office was used by the bailiffs for telephoning and other purposes and that when the bailiff told the Judge that the jury was unable to agree, without apprising him that it was a communication from the jury, the Judge, thinking the bailiff was merely making conversation in connection with performing some other errand, told him in substance and effect that the jury could not be discharged yet and would have to continue their deliberations. The bailiff, however, perhaps because he was inexperienced and found the job of awaiting a verdict rather tedious, particularly without the benefit of time and a half and double time for overtime paid by every other employer, told the jury that they would not only have to continue their deliberations but also would have to reach a verdict.
The question presented is whether an unauthorized communication by the bailiff, which the jury believed came from the Judge in response to its query, to the effect that they would have to reach a verdict is in the circumstances here present such error as to require a new trial. The defendant contends that error is presumed. That may be, but the presumption is rebuttable. Chambers v. United States, 8 Cir., 237 F. 513. The immediate question, therefore, is whether this presumption has been rebutted.
At the outset it should be noted that affidavits of jurors that they were influenced by such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Gereau
...1947), cert, denied, 333 U.S. 838; United States v. Gibas, 300 F.2d 836 (7th Cir. 1962), cert, denied, 371 U.S. 817; United States v. Brown, 13 Alaska 392, 99 F.Supp. 527 (D.C. Alaska 1951, aff'd 14 Alaska 167, 201 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1953); Jackson v. United States, 313 F.2d 572 (D.C. Cir. ......
-
Brown v. United States
...thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than fifteen years * * *." 2 United States v. Brown, D.C.Alaska, 99 F.Supp. 527. 3 Tax receipts issued by appellant, as Deputy Tax Collector, were sometimes called 4 Tyler and Poythress, testifying as w......