CHARLES HARTWELL PARROTT, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the unavailability of a complete transcript of the voir dire examination, due to the court reporter's failure to comply with statutory recording requirements, prevents determination of whether errors were harmless.
The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to rob a bank. During voir dire, the judge mentioned other pending bank robbery charges against the defendan…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy To Commit Bank Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
The appeal is from a judgment of fine and imprisonment entered on a jury verdict finding the appellant-defendant guilty of conspiracy to rob a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The only point deserving consideration is the effect of a statement by the trial judge in the voir dire examination of prospective jurors that 3 other charges of bank robbery were pending against the defendant.
The voir dire examination was not recorded. After discovery of this fact, counsel for the defendant filed a motion to complete the record and supported that motion with affidavits. The official court reporter then wrote defense counsel, saying:
“I beg to advise that it is not the practice to take voir dire examination of the jury, consequently my notes of the trial do not contain Judge Rizley’s statement to the jury.”
The statute requires the recording of “all proceedings in criminal cases had in open court.” 1 This provision is mandatory and the court has the duty to require compliance.2 A local rule or practice cannot override a statute of the United States.
The government does not deny that in the voir dire the trial judge mentioned the other bank robbery cases pending in the same court against the defendant but argues that the error was harmless. The unavailability of a full transcript because of the undisputed failure of the court reporter to comply with the statute makes it impossible for us to determine whether the errors were harmless and should be disregarded because of Rule 52(a), F.R.Crim.P. The Fifth Circuit has reached the same conclusion in a similar situation.3
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. 28 U.S.C. § 753(b) provides in part: “One of the reporters appointed for each such court shall attend at each session of the court and at every other proceeding designated by rule or order of court or by one of the judges, and shall record verbatim by shorthand or by mechanical means: (1) all proceedings in criminal cases had in open court; * * The importance of recording the voir dire examination is shown by such cases as Consolidated Gas & Equipment Company of America v. Carver, 10 Cir., 257 F. 2d 111, 113-114, where a judgment was reversed because of a false answer on voir dire.
. Poole v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 71, 250 F. 2d 396, 399.
. Stephens v. United States, 5 Cir., 289 F. 2d 308, 309.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Meyer Sigal, 341 F.2d 837 (3d Cir. 1965)
-
Edwards v. The United States, 374 F.2d 24 (10th Cir. 1966)
-
Clay Calhoun and Sybil Calhoun v. United States, 384 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1967)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Poole v. United States, 250 F.2d 396 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
- Consol. GAS & Equip. Co. of Am. v. Carver, 257 F.2d 111 (10th Cir. 1958)
- Stephens v. United States, 289 F.2d 308 (5th Cir. 1961)