United States v. Marine, Cr. A. No. 631.
| Citation | 84 F. Supp. 785 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1949 |
| Docket Number | Cr. A. No. 631. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MARINE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
William Marvel, U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, Del., for United States of America.
H. Albert Young, of Wilmington, Del., for defendant.
Defendant1 at his second trial was convicted of possession of stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. Defendant filed a motion in which he urged many reasons for a judgment of acquittal or in the alternative a new trial. Assignment of Error No. 16 charged that Juror No. 7 engaged in conversation and conduct with government witnesses which were prejudicial to defendant. This matter was set down for separate hearing, for if this error was prejudicial there would be no need to pass on the remaining alleged errors.
At the hearing on Assignment of Error No. 16 an amazing and unseeming situation was developed. The facts brought out at the hearing showed that Juror 7 was a resident of Sussex County. On his arrival in Wilmington on the first day of the trial, he testified he had some difficulty in finding a parking place. By a fortuitous circumstance he made inquiry of a parking place of Edward W. Flounders, an employee of the Pennsylvania Railroad and who appeared as a government witness. The juror was impressed by the kindly way he was advised by Flounders, whom he had never seen before.
The fact is Flounders testified in the morning session of the first day of four days of trial. Although Juror 7 was slightly vague on the point, it seems apparent from all the testimony that he had lunch with Flounders on the first day of trial. It is further apparent that while they met in a lunch room, there was plenty of available space for eating at different tables. During lunch there was conversation and at the conclusion of lunch the government witness Flounders and Juror 7 left together and went to the public square, opposite the Court House, where they sat on a park bench talking and conversing. They did not separate until it was time to return to court for the afternoon session.
It must be clear that at the time of the lunch on the first day, Juror 7 knew that Flounders had testified as a government witness. On the second day of trial Flounders also testified and at the noon recess Juror 7 asked to have lunch with him. Again they had lunch, conversed with one another and remained together during the entire noon recess.
On the third day of trial, the last day in which testimony was introduced, Juror 7 again asked Flounders to have lunch with him. They remained together on this occasion during the noon recess, discussed various topics, and it appeared from all the testimony that they discussed persons of mutual acquaintance, including Captain Oscar Thomas of the Pennsylvania Railroad police, who was also a government witness. This day they left the restaurant together, sat down on a park bench in the public square not far from the sidewalk, and then Harry C. Messick, another government witness, joined them. It appears from the evidence that Mr. Messick did not participate much in the conversation but did ask Juror 7 one or two questions about people living around Milford.
Finally, on the last day of trial, when all the testimony was in, Juror 7 engaged in conversation with Captain Thomas. It was impossible for Juror 7 to lunch with Flounders on that day for the case had been submitted to the jury and the jurors were not permitted to separate. The evidence was vague and slightly conflicting as to the various subjects discussed at the meetings between Juror 7 and Flounders. It was conflicting because Juror 7 said the conversations were limited to the charms of a young lady who was a waitress at their eating place; crops; and matters of local interest in the lower part of the state. Juror 7 was asked repeatedly and was very specific in his denial that railroading or any railroad men were ever discussed. Flounders, on the other hand, testified that they did discuss railroading and several railroad men, particularly Captain Thomas, who had been known for many years by Juror 7.
From all the testimony, Juror 7 and Flounders had very little in common. There were marked differences in ages and also in intellect, as disclosed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Cianciulli, Crim. No. 79-165-1
...to the defendant. 347 U.S. at 229, 74 S.Ct. at 451. See also Allen v. U. S., 376 F.Supp. 1386, 1388 (E.D. Pa.1974); U. S. v. Marine, 84 F.Supp. 785, 787 (D.Del.1949); U. S. v. Rakes, 74 F.Supp. 645, 648 The approach to be taken when deciding these questions is set forth in Allen v. U. S., s......
-
Jenkins v. State
...continual association throughout the trial between the jurors and these two key witnesses for the prosecution."); United States v. Marine, 84 F.Supp. 785, 787 (D.Del.1949) (new trial warranted when juror and prosecution witness ate lunch together during the trial, even when it was uncertain......
-
Ryan v. United States
...to a juror in the nature of bribery, the court said it must be shown no injury could have occurred. See, also, United States v. Marine, D.C.Del.1949, 84 F.Supp. 785, 787. We hold in the present case that the question of bias or prejudice was susceptible of an intelligent judgment by the tri......
-
State v. Turner, 46338
...So. 756, State v. Fuller, 218 La. 872, 51 So.2d 305.'4 The cases of Tarkington v. State, 72 Miss. 731, 17 So. 768, and United States v. Marine, D.C., 84 F.Supp. 785, relied upon by defendant are not in point. In the Tarkington case the officer-witnesses were with the jury while they were De......