United States v. Titus
Decision Date | 25 January 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 9,Docket 22568.,9 |
Citation | 210 F.2d 210 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. TITUS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Anthony F. Caffrey, U. S. Atty. for the Northern Dist. of N. Y., Syracuse, N. Y. (Robert J. Leamy, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oneonta, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.
William W. Barron, Washington, D. C., Paul R. Shanahan, Syracuse, N. Y., William J. Barron, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before CLARK, FRANK, and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.
The trial occurred in Syracuse in Onondaga County, New York. The trial judge denied defendant's motion, made eight days before the first trial, to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the grand jury had been illegally constituted. The government urges that, under Criminal Rule 12(b) (3), 18 U.S. C., this motion was not timely made;2 we are not entirely free from doubt on the matter, but, in the circumstances, we think it desirable to pass on the motion's merits.
28 U.S.C. § 1865(a) reads in part as follows: "Grand and petit jurors shall from time to time be selected from such parts of the district as the court directs so as to be most favorable to an impartial trial, and not to incur unnecessary expense or unduly burden the citizens of any part of the district with jury service."2a
In 1914, the district court for the Northern District of New York made an order, never since modified, providing that when a stated trial term of that court is held at Syracuse, New York, the grand and petit jurors are to be drawn from Onondaga County. The Northern District contains 29 counties; on its westerly side it runs from the Canadian border on the north to almost the Pennsylvania border on the south, and on its easterly side to the southerly limits of Albany County. The defendant contends that this method of selection, employed in choosing the grand jurors who indicted the defendant, violated his constitutional rights. We do not agree. See United States v. Gottfried, 2 Cir., 165 F.2d 360, 363-365. For the same reasons we reject defendant's similar contention that the trial court erred in denying defendant's challenge to the array of the petit jury.
Defendant, citing Delaney v. United States, 1 Cir., 199 F.2d 107, argues that he was deprived of due process because of adverse local publicity in Syracuse where the trial was held. The record contains no evidence to support that contention. Moreover, defendant specifically asked that he be tried in Syracuse.
On the voir dire of the jurors, the defense exhausted its peremptory challenges. Prospective juror Van Denburg testified that he had formed an opinion as to the merits from what he had read of the former trial which would require some evidence to remove. The court then told the veniremen:
The defense interposed a challenge, for bias, to Van Denburg "because of the opinion he has formed." The court thereupon questioned him further:
The remarks of the juror justified the court's ruling. In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 155-157, 25 L.Ed. 244, the Court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Warden, Joliet Correctional Inst. at Stateville
...v. Buchanan, 29 F.2d 1148, 1151 (7th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 950, 96 S.Ct. 1725, 48 L.Ed.2d 194 (1976); United States v. Titus, 210 F.2d 210, 212-13 (2d Cir.1954); Yoho v. United States, 202 F.2d 241, 242 (9th Cir.1953); Jeffers v. United States, 451 F.Supp. 1338, 1346 (N.D.Ind.19......
-
United States v. Gilboy
...the panel from the NE counties of a thirty-two county district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1865 was proper. United States v. Titus, 2 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 210, at page 212; United States v. Gottfried, 2 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 360, at pages 363-365. The rationale of In re Petition for Special Gr......
-
United States v. Kelly
...in the Southern District was 770,000. We conclude, accordingly, that Gottfried is still controlling. See also United States v. Titus, 2 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 210, 212-213. The claim that it was improper to send jury notices only to the twelve cities and towns in Westchester County closest to......
-
People v. Jones
...p. 708; italics added.) (See Ruthenberg v. United States (1917), 245 U.S. 480, 482, 38 S.Ct. 168, 62 L.Ed. 414; United States v. Titus (2d Cir. 1954), 210 F.2d 210, 212--213; United States v. Ayres (D.C.S.D.1891), 46 F. 651.)6 The People refer to the following excerpt from Brown: '. . . a d......