York v. United States
| Decision Date | 14 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 13639.,13639. |
| Citation | 167 F.2d 847 |
| Parties | YORK v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Robert B. Langworthy, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Harry F. Murphy, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Sam M. Wear, U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN and COLLET, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted by a jury and sentenced on September 5, 1946, in the Western District of Missouri, under 18 U.S.C.A. § 408, for having transported in interstate commerce a stolen motor vehicle, knowing it to have been stolen. He took no appeal from the conviction but entered upon the service of his sentence.
On May 19, 1947, he filed the present motion to vacate the sentence, on the ground that women had been intentionally and systematically excluded from the petit jury by which he was tried. This was the first time he had undertaken to raise the question. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
Appellant has filed a brief pro se, and at his request the Court also appointed counsel to represent him, who has prepared and filed a comprehensive supplemental brief and has further fully presented appellant's cause in oral argument.
In the brief filed by appellant pro se, he asserts that, not only on the petit jury, but on the grand jury also by which he was indicted, were women intentionally and systematically excluded, but no issue as to the grand jury panel was raised in his motion or presented to the trial court and it is therefore not a question here. If the question had been properly raised, however, what is said herein as to the petit jury would also be controlling as to the grand jury.
The trial court based its denial of appellant's motion on two grounds. The first was that the right to object to the petit jury was waived because appellant had not made any objection in connection with the trial and on an appeal from his conviction. We have only recently held in three similar cases that the right to not have women intentionally and systematically excluded from a jury panel is one that may be waived and that it ordinarily will be deemed to have been so waived where timely objection is not made in the proceedings and the question is sought to be raised for the first time by motion to vacate the sentence after it has become effective. Wright v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 405; King v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 408; Brown v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 409.
The second ground on which the trial court denied the motion was that on the facts of the situation the contention that there had been an intentional and systematic exclusion of women from the jury panel was without merit. Prior to 1945 women were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miranda v. United States
...407; King v. United States, 8 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 408, certiorari denied 334 U.S. 848, 65 S.Ct. 1499, 92 L.Ed. 1771; York v. United States, 8 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 847, 848; United States v. Klock, 2 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 217, 220; Poliafico v. United States, 6 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 97, 110, ......
-
United States v. Silverman, 8991.
...2 Cir., 210 F.2d 217 at page 220; Ford v. United States, 5 Cir., 201 F.2d 300; Dean v. United States, 9 Cir., 169 F.2d 70; York v. United States, 8 Cir., 167 F.2d 847. To some extent the commission may also have felt that, if any person whose name was drawn from the jury list was in fact di......
-
Brown v. State
...jurors in the highest court of the state. Id. at page 64, 62 S.Ct. 457.34 Supra, footnote 32, at page 65, 62 S.Ct. at page 462.35 (8th Cir. 1948), 167 F.2d 847.36 Id. 167 F.2d at page 848.37 (1898), 99 Wis. 617, 75 N.W. 420.38 Id. at page 619, 75 N.W. at page 420. Ray v. Lake Superior Termi......
-
Rambo v. Peyton
...1 Cir., 255 F. 2d 9; Poliafico v. United States, 6 Cir., 237 F.2d 97; United States v. Klock, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 217; York v. United States, 8 Cir., 167 F.2d 847; Brown v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 409; King v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 408; Wright v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.......