Windom v. United States, 5897.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 5897.,5897. |
| Parties | Rex Stidham WINDOM, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Timothy P. Woolston, Albuquerque, N. M., on brief for appellant.
J. C. Ryan, Albuquerque, N. M. (James A. Borland, Albuquerque, N. M., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, PICKETT and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
The defendant below appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for New Mexico, on a jury verdict of guilty on two counts in an indictment charging the interstate transportation of certain forged cashier's checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314. The only point on appeal is the refusal of the court on timely motion to quash the jury array on the asserted ground that only persons of "elevated social, economic and political status" were selected to serve on the jury panel.
Examination of the United States District Court Clerk, who, with an appointed Jury Commissioner, selected the jury panel, disclosed that form letters were sent to key persons in the various counties of New Mexico requesting suggestions of names of persons qualified to serve on juries. These form letters expressed a desire "to compile a jury list composed of good citizens from the several counties of the state representing a cross-section of the population, fairly apportioned as to sex and racial origin." These key persons submitted the names of suggested jurors, who were in turn sent questionnaires, asking their name, age, occupation, residence, length of residence in New Mexico, understanding of the English language, and exemptions and qualifications. The jury panel was selected from these qualified persons.
No attack is made on this procedure for selecting federal jurors, and indeed it has been specifically approved by the courts. Walker v. United States, 8 Cir., 93 F.2d 383; United States v. Brandt, D.C., 139 F.Supp. 349; United States v. McClure, D.C., 4 F.Supp. 668. Instead, the attack is directed against the refusal of the court to require the jury commission to disclose the names of the key persons in order that counsel might examine them concerning the "motives and bases" of their recommendations. The court's stated reason for refusing to reveal the identity of the key persons was to protect them from harassment, both by those wishing to serve on juries and those wishing to avoid jury service.
In the exercise of its superintending power in the administration of federal criminal justice, the appellate courts have been quick to strike down any conviction by a jury in the selection of which members of any race, creed or economic status are systematically excluded. See Bary v. United States, 10 Cir., 248 F.2d 201. Thus, it has been held improper to exclude women, although eligible, Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 67 S.Ct. 261, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hoffa
...Mercantile Co., 283 F.2d 597 (C.A. 10, 1960) cert. denied 365 U.S. 828, 81 S. Ct. 713, 5 L.Ed.2d 705 (1961); Windom v. United States, 260 F.2d 384 (C.A.10, 1958); Walker v. United States, 93 F.2d 383 (C.A.8, 1937) cert. denied 303 U.S. 644, 58 S.Ct. 642, 82 L.Ed. 1103 (1938); United States ......
-
Malone v. Emmet, Civ. A. No. 2620-N.
...of daily wage earners, compare Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 66 S.Ct. 984, 90 L.Ed. 1181 (1946); Windom v. United States, 260 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1958); Padgett v. Buxton-Smith Mercantile Co., 283 F.2d 597 (10th Cir. 1960), cert. denied 365 U.S. 828, 81 S.Ct. 713, 5 L.Ed.2d 7......
-
State v. Walker
...if the challenge presents no legal ground for objection to the array, the court may properly refuse to hear evidence. Windom v. United States, 260 F.2d 384 (10 Cir., 1958). In order for a defendant to disqualify a jury panel because of absence of members of his race, he must show deliberate......
-
Com. v. Peters
...752 (1966)) was not abused. See Commonwealth v. Underwood, --- Mass.App. ---, --- n. 15, a 335 N.E.2d 915 (1975); Windom v. United States, 260 F.2d 384, 385 (10th Cir. 1958). 2. As noted, no objection was taken to the jury instruction now attacked, and we do not find reason to depart from t......