United States v. Williams
| Decision Date | 21 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 135-69.,135-69. |
| Citation | 417 F.2d 630 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Allen WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John A. Babington, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Victor R. Ortega, U. S. Atty., with him on the brief) for plaintiff-appellee.
Edward T. Curran, Albuquerque, N. M., for defendant-appellant.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, LEWIS, Circuit Judge, and THEIS, District Judge.
Appellant was charged in the District Court for the District of New Mexico for violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2312 (Dyer Act) and appeals from the judgment and sentence following conviction. His sole contention is that the voir dire was inadequate to properly test the qualifications and competency of the prospective jurors.
Before voir dire, appellant submitted in writing eleven proposed questions. Judge Bratton conducted the voir dire inquiry in its entirety in accordance with Rule 24, Fed.R.Crim.P., and asked in substance, though in different words, nine of the suggested interrogatories. Refusal to propound two of the interrogatories is the subject of this appeal.
The judge asked the veniremen if they had heard anything about the charge; if they knew or had heard of the defendant; if they were acquainted with any of the attorneys or any members of the prosecutor's staff; if any of them had been the victim of a car theft; if any of them had been employed as a law enforcement agent; if they would believe the testimony of a law enforcement officer more than that of any other witness merely because he was a law enforcement officer; if any of them had served on a jury before; and if there was any reason why they could not decide the case solely on the evidence and the instructions. They were told that the indictment was only a charge. And, at the close of the evidence, the jury was instructed on presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.
The trial judge declined the request to inquire of the prospective jurors: "* * * If you heard the evidence and you thought that the defendant was probably guilty — you weren't convinced that he was or that he wasn't, but you thought the evidence showed he probably was guilty — would you be able to return a verdict of not guilty in this case?"; and: Williams insists that the trial court's refusal to ask the two questions hindered him in his effort to uncover any bias or prejudice that a prospective juror might harbor against the traditional concepts of presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Williams also claims that he was prejudiced since he was "possibly forced to use pre-emptory sic challenges when challenges for cause could have been used."
Without counsel's statement of his underlying motives for propounding the questions, we would be unable to perceive the sense or import of either of them. On their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Smaldone
...demands of fairness. Lowther v. United States, 10 Cir., 455 F.2d 657; United States v. Brewer, 10 Cir., 427 F.2d 409 ; United States v. Williams, 10 Cir., 417 F.2d 630. A review of the record convinces us that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in not asking the proffered v......
-
Lowther v. United States
...States, 283 U.S. 308, 51 S.Ct. 470, 75 L.Ed. 1054 (1931); United States v. Brewer, 427 F.2d 409 (10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Williams, 417 F.2d 630 (10th Cir. 1969); Kreuter v. United States, 376 F.2d 654 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 1015, 88 S.Ct. 1267, 20 L.Ed.2d 165 (196......
-
United States v. Addington, No. 71-1073.
...Addington points to no specific inquiry that should have been made and was omitted and thus shows no prejudice. See United States v. Williams, 417 F.2d 630 (10th Cir.). We believe that the voir dire examination revealed by the record in no way denied the "essential demands of fairness," Uni......
-
United States v. Brewer
...subject to essential demands of fairness. Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 310, 51 S.Ct. 470, 75 L.Ed. 1054; United States v. Williams, 417 F.2d 630, 631 (10th Cir.). We have said that it is a proper subject of voir dire to ask whether jurors would give greater or less weight to ant......
-
Developing Basic Trial Skills
...race and gender-neutral reason. See, e.g., C.R.C.P. 47(h). 3. See, e.g., Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 431 (1991); U.S. v. Williams, 417 F.2d 630, 631 (C.A.N.M. 4. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 84 (1986) (seminal case); see also J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 130-3......