United States v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 09 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 13176.,13176. |
| Citation | 413 F.2d 983 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Kenneth HUNT, Jr. and Joseph John Glassmeyer, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert E. Riddle, Asheville, N. C. (Court-appointed counsel), on brief for appellant.
William Medford, U. S. Atty., on brief for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
Whether the failure to interrogate defendants as to the voluntariness of their waiver of a jury trial, and whether four-year sentences imposed on them upon their convictions for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S. C.A. § 2312, constitute reversible error are the questions for decision. We declined to hear oral argument.
Defendants waived a jury trial, in accordance with Rule 23(a), Fed.R. Crim.P., by stating through counsel in open court that they waived a jury trial and by executing a written waiver in open court, witnessed by the clerk. The written waiver recited that defendants were represented by counsel, had been furnished with a copy of the indictment against them, had been advised of the nature of the charges against them and had been "informed of their rights." Defendants were not interrogated by the district judge to show that they understood that they had a right to a jury trial, and that, with that knowledge, they freely and voluntarily relinquished that right. The United States Attorney consented to the waiver and the Court approved it.
Neither Rule 23(a) nor any decision to which we have been referred required the omitted interrogation. We do not read Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854 (1930), to the contrary. Nor do the recent decisions in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), determine the question. The execution of the written waiver in open court constituted literal and full compliance with Rule 23(a).
We hold that nothing more was required, either by Rule 23(a), or the Sixth Amendment. Undoubtedly, it is better practice for a district judge, when advised by a defendant that he desires to waive his right to a jury trial, to interrogate the defendant so as to satisfy himself that the defendant is fully apprised of his rights and freely and voluntarily desires to relinquish them. Such an interrogation would provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ciummei v. Com.
...427 F.2d 1280, 1282 (3d Cir. 1970); United States v. Straite, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 163, 164, 425 F.2d 594, 595 (1970); United States v. Hunt, 413 F.2d 983, 984 (4th Cir. 1969); State v. Jelks, 105 Ariz. 175, 178, 461 P.2d 473 (1969) (with a dissent); Quartz v. State, 258 So.2d 283, 284 (Fla.Dis......
-
Dumas v. State
...may allege for the first time, as fundamental error, 8 that the waiver was not voluntarily and intelligently made. See United States v. Hunt, 413 F.2d 983 (4th Cir.1969) (question of whether a waiver of jury trial was freely and voluntarily made may be raised by post-trial motion under 28 U......
-
State v. Gore
...United States v. Scott, supra, 583 F.2d at 363-64; United States v. Strother, 578 F.2d 397, 404-405 (D.C.Cir.1978); United States v. Hunt, 413 F.2d 983, 984 (4th Cir.1969). Moreover, the overwhelming majority of states require a written waiver by the defendant, a canvass conducted by the tr......
-
U.S. v. Robertson
...464 U.S. 838, 104 S.Ct. 129, 78 L.Ed.2d 125 (1983); United States v. Strother, 578 F.2d 397, 404-05 (D.C.Cir.1978); United States v. Hunt, 413 F.2d 983, 984 (4th Cir.1969). Given the significance of the right to a jury trial and the importance of the decision to waive that right, we have no......