LEONARD
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.
Leonard was convicted in two separate trials of federal crimes involving forged government checks; the second jury trial was tainted because five jurors had heard the guilty verdict from the first trial immediately beforehand, and the trial court erred in denying Leonard's objection to seating jurors from a panel exposed to that verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction in the second case, holding that prospective jurors who have heard a guilty verdict in a similar case tried immediately before should be automatically disqualified if the defendant objects.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 P. 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 pau-peris 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1982)…rought to the court’s attention which convince the court that Government employees would not be suitable jurors in a particular case.” Id., at 172-173. Moreover, this Court has used implied bias to reverse a conviction. 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 [*224] verdict in the first trial should be automatically disqualified from sitting on a second trial on similar charges. Ill…1 / 2
-
Mu'min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1991)…matically require a juror’s disqualification. See Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 466 (1965) (jurors placed in custody of deputy sheriffs who were key prosecution witnesses presumed incapable of rendering impartial verdict); Leonard v. United States, 378 U. S. 544 (1964) (per cu-riam) (prospective jurors who heard trial court announce defendant’s guilty verdict in first trial presumed incapable of rendering impartial verdict on second trial on similar charges). The majority suggests that content questions wi…
-
United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1984)…ates, 350 U.S. 377, 76 S.Ct. 425, 100 L.Ed. 435 (1956), and its progeny. In contrast, the doctrine of implied bias is represented by cases such as Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S.Ct. 519, 94 L.Ed. 734 (1950) and Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1964) (per curiam). Justice O’Connor's concurrence in Phillips indicates clearly that under extreme circumstances, for example when a juror actually participates in the criminal act with a defendant, a postconvictio…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence