HARRISON
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
Harrison was convicted of robbing a mail carrier and sentenced to life imprisonment, but was given only three peremptory challenges during jury selection when the applicable statute entitled him to ten peremptory challenges for felony trials. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in limiting the defendant's peremptory challenges below the statutory entitlement, which resulted in five unauthorized jurors participating in the verdict.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fullee delivered the opinion of the court.
As stated by counsel for the United States, plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under an indictment for robbing a mail carrier of the United States of a registered mail package, which charged that in effecting such robbery he put in jeopardy the life of the carrier by the use of dangerous weapons; and was based on the following section of the Revised Statutes:
“ Sec. 5472. Any person who shall rob any carrier, agent-or other person intrusted with the mail, of such mail, or any part thereof, shall be punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than five years and not more than ten years;. and if convicted a second time of a like offence, or if, in effecting such robbery the first time, the robber shall wound the person having custody of the mail, or put his life in jeopardy by the use of dangerous weapons, such offender shall be punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for the term of his natural life.”
In the course of impanelling the jury, plaintiff in error challenged three persons peremptorily, and afterwards challenged one Harris peremptorily, but the court held that he was entitled to only three peremptory challenges, which he had exhausted, and overruled the challenge, to which action of the court an exception was duly taken. Harris was then sworn on the jury and sat as a member thereof on the trial. Four other persons were likewise separately challenged peremptorily, the challenges overruled, exceptions taken, and they served on the jury.
If plaintiff in error was entitled to ten peremptory challenges, five persons unlawfully took part as jurors in his conviction. Section 819 of the Revised Statutes provides:
“ "When the offence charged is treason or a capital offence,, the defendant shall be entitled to twenty and the United States to five peremptory challenges. On the trial of any other felony, the defendant shall be entitled to ten Mid the United States to three peremptory challenges; and in all other cases, civil and criminal, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges; and in all cases where there are several defendants or several plaintiffs, the parties on each side shall be deemed a single party for the purposes of all challenges under this section. All challenges, whether to the array or panel, or to individual jurors for cause or favor, shall be tried by the court without the aid of triers.”
Counsel concedes that at common law “ robbery ” was a felony and that the word “ rob ” in the statute was used in its common law sense, and, therefore, admits that the errors assigned in respect of the action of the court in overruling these •challenges are well taken. W e concur in this view.
Other rulings of the court are questioned in the brief of plaintiff in error, but it is quite improbable that they will occur on another trial and we need not pass upon them.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded with a direction to set aside the verdict and gra/nt a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1965)…e most important of the rights secured to the accused,” Pointer v. United States, 151 U. S. 396, 408. The denial or impairment of the right is reversible error without a showing of prejudice, Lewis v. United States, supra; Harrison v. United States, 163 U. S. 140; cf. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Shane, 157 U. S. 348. “For it is, as Blackstone says, an arbitrary and capricious right; and it must be exercised with full freedom, or it fails of its full purpose.” Lewis v. United States, supra, at 378. T…
-
Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101 (U.S. 1943)
-
Kiernan v. van Schaik, 347 F.2d 775 (3d Cir. 1965)…sed,’ Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 408 [14 S.Ct. 410, 38 L.Ed. 208]. The denial or impairment of the right is reversible error without a showing of prejudice, Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370 [13 S.Ct. 136]; Harrison v. United States, 163 U.S. 140 [16 S.Ct. 961, 41 L.Ed. 104]; cf. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Shane, 157 U.S. 348 [15 S. Ct. 641, 39 L.Ed. 727]. ‘[F]or it is, as Blackstone says, an arbitrary and capricious right, and it must be exercised with full freedom, or it fails of…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence