U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1959

Donald v. Sellers v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided September 17, 1959 · Miller, Bazelon, Bastían

271 F.2d 475; 106 U.S. App. D.C. 209; 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3360 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Josiah Lyman, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appel-lee. Mr. John W. Warner, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

48 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Ronald R. Brown v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1964)
Moore v. State (Md. 2010)
Langley v. State (Md. 1977)
State v. Wraggs (Mo. Ct. App. 1974)
Harvin v. United States (D.C. 1972)
Gibson v. United States (D.C. 1994)
United States v. John Antonio Evans, United States of America v. William McIntyre (4th Cir. 1990)
Commonwealth v. Futch (Pa. 1976)
United States v. Edward Lee Jackson (5th Cir. 1971)
United States v. Irving Napue (7th Cir. 1969)
Jenkins v. United States (D.C. 1988)
State v. Barks (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)
Roland Sandidge v. Salen Offshore Drilling Company, Salen Protexa Drilling Company (5th Cir. 1985)
State v. Wilson (W. Va. 1974)
United States v. Bennie L. Peterson (D.C. Cir. 1973)
Parson v. State (Del. 1971)
Evelyn Hinkle v. Marcus L. Hampton (10th Cir. 1968)
United States v. James Napoleone (3d Cir. 1965)
United States v. Coleman, Chauncey (D.C. Cir. 2009)
Bolhouse v. State (Alaska Ct. App. 1984)
People v. Williams (Cal. 1981)
United States v. Nancy Baker and William James Reeder (10th Cir. 1980)
United States v. Joe Don Baldwin (9th Cir. 1979)
McFadden v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1979)
United States v. Gerald Charles McGregor United States of America v. Charles James Wilson (9th Cir. 1976)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of violation of statutes relating to marihuana 1 and dangerous drugs. 2 His conviction was based upon the testimony of an undercover police officer who had befriended him.

One of the many allegations of error relates to the voir dire upon which the court alone interrogated the jurors. At the conclusion of its examination, defense counsel requested the court to ask whether “any of the jurors [are] inclined to give more weight to the testimony of a police officer merely because he is a police officer than any other witness in the case ?” (Emphasis supplied.) The court denied the request. We hold this is reversible error requiring a new trial.

A trial court’s “broad discretion as to the questions to be asked” on voir dire is “subject to the essential demands of fairness.” Aldridge v. United States, 1931, 283 U.S. 308, 310, 51 S.Ct. 470, 471, 75 L.Ed. 1054. In the recent case of Chavez v. United States, 10 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 816, 819, certiorari denied sub nom. Tenorio v. United States, 1959, 359 U.S. 916, 79 S.Ct. 592, 3 L.Ed.2d 577, it was pointed out that a “defendant cannot be fairly tried by a juror who would be inclined to give unqualified credence to a law enforcement officer simply because he is an officer.” 3

In the present case the Government concedes that the voir dire had by no means been unduly protracted. The police officer’s testimony was virtually the *477 entire case for the prosecution. In these circumstances, the refusal to question the jurors in accordance with defense counsel’s request constituted an abuse of discretion.

Since the other questions raised on this appeal may not recur in a new trial, we do not consider them.

Reversed and remanded.

WILBUR K MILLER, Circuit Judge, dissents.

. Int.Rev.Code of 1954, §§ 4742(a) and 4744(a), 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4742(a), 4744(a).

. D.C.Code § 33-702 (Supp. VII, 1959).

. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s refusal to ask to jurors “Would any of you place a greater amount of weight upon the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of the defendants?” Since this Question did not ask whether the law enforcement officer’s testimony would be given greater weight “simply because he is an. officer” it represented an attempt to determine in advance of trial whether a juror would believe the testimony of one witness rather than another, and therefore was improper. Accord, Frederick v. United States, 9 Cir., 1947,163 F.2d 537, 550.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.