From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leonard v. United States

U.S.
Jun 22, 1964
378 U.S. 544 (1964)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that where five members of a jury had heard a guilty verdict in the defendant's previous unrelated case, it was plainly erroneous to allow the second conviction to stand

Summary of this case from State v. Quintana
See 16 Summaries

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

No. 1017, Misc.

Decided June 22, 1964.

Trial of petitioner over his objection by jury some of whose members were selected from panel in whose presence another jury in similar preceding case had announced verdict of his guilt is clearly erroneous.

Certiorari granted; 324 F.2d 914, reversed and remanded.

John G. Clancy for petitioner.

Solicitor General Cox for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was convicted in separate trials and by different juries of forging and uttering endorsements on government checks, 18 U.S.C. § 495, and of transportation of a forged instrument in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The two cases were tried in succession. The jury in the case tried first — forging and uttering endorsements — announced its guilty verdict in open court in the presence of the jury panel from which the jurors who were to try the second case — transportation of a forged instrument — were selected. Petitioner immediately objected to selecting a jury for the second case from among members of the panel who had heard the guilty verdict in the first case. The objection was overruled, and the actual jury which found petitioner guilty in the second case contained five jurors who had heard the verdict in the first case. The conviction in the second case was affirmed on appeal, 324 F.2d 914, and petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari.

The Solicitor General, in his brief filed in this Court, states that:

"The procedure followed by the district court in selecting the jury was, in our view, plainly erroneous. Prospective jurors who have sat in the courtroom and heard a verdict returned against a man charged with crime in a similar case immediately prior to the trial of another indictment against him should be automatically disqualified from serving at the second trial, if the objection is raised at the outset."

We agree that under the circumstances of this case the trial court erred in denying petitioner's objection. Accordingly the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Summaries of

Leonard v. United States

U.S.
Jun 22, 1964
378 U.S. 544 (1964)

holding that where five members of a jury had heard a guilty verdict in the defendant's previous unrelated case, it was plainly erroneous to allow the second conviction to stand

Summary of this case from State v. Quintana

finding bias as a matter of law where jurors seated for second of two back-to-back trials involving same defendant were present in the courtroom when the guilty verdict from the first trial was announced

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Beard

finding implied bias where jurors in a second case against Leonard were selected from a group which heard a guilty verdict in the first case

Summary of this case from State v. Christensen

reversing conviction where defendant had objected to composition of jury whose members included persons present when guilty verdict was returned against him in another case

Summary of this case from Conner v. Polk

reversing conviction where prospective jurors were sitting in courtroom and heard guilty verdict returned against defendant in similar type case

Summary of this case from Barbee v. Stephens

reversing conviction and remanding for a new trial where members of a jury heard the verdict on the defendant's unrelated case before the start of the trial on which they served

Summary of this case from State v. Quintana

recognizing that a jury containing jurors that had previously heard a defendant pronounced guilty in open court on similar charges was "plainly erroneous"

Summary of this case from State v. Lankford

recognizing that a jury containing jurors that had previously heard a defendant pronounced guilty in open court on similar charges was "plainly erroneous"

Summary of this case from State v. Lankford

recognizing that a jury comprised in part of jurors that had just previously heard a defendant pronounced guilty in open court on similar charges was "plainly erroneous"

Summary of this case from State v. Lankford

In Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544 (1964) (per curiam), the Court held that prospective jurors who had heard the trial court announce the defendant's guilty verdict in the first trial should be automatically disqualified from sitting on a second trial on similar charges.

Summary of this case from Smith v. Phillips

In Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1964), the Supreme Court implicitly upheld a claim of implied bias.

Summary of this case from Brooks v. Dretke

disqualifying the jurors only "under the circumstances of this case"

Summary of this case from Moore v. Parker

In Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544 (1964), the separate jury in the second of two consecutive trials heard the first jury announce defendant guilty in open court.

Summary of this case from United States v. Parmley

In Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1964), the Court reversed defendant's conviction where jurors had sat in open court and listened to another jury return a guilty verdict against the same defendant whom they then proceeded to try on charges almost identical to those on which they had seen him convicted.

Summary of this case from United States v. Dion

In Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1964) (per curiam), the Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction because a previous guilty verdict on a similar charge had been returned against him in the presence of the panel from which jurors were selected to try the second charge.

Summary of this case from United States v. Patterson

In Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1964), the Supreme Court rejected a federal conviction based upon the transportation of a forged instrument in interstate commerce.

Summary of this case from Donovan v. Davis
Case details for

Leonard v. United States

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD v . UNITED STATES

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jun 22, 1964

Citations

378 U.S. 544 (1964)
84 S. Ct. 1696

Citing Cases

Moore v. Parker

On direct appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court rejected this argument, concluding that Moore himself presented…

Isom v. State

Isom concedes that he received the remedy required by Remmer v. United States , 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450,…

64 Citing Cases