Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/202/150/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:48:41+00:00

Document:
The passage of the Act of July 20, 1840, 5 Stat. 391, and of 800, Rev.Stat. granting peremptory challenges to the government in criminal cases has not taken away the right to conditional or qualified challenges when permitted in the state, and where it has been adopted by the federal court as a rule or by special order. The exercise of the right is under supervision of the court, which should not permit it to be used unreasonably or so as to prejudice defendant. It is not an unreasonable exercise of the privilege where, notwithstanding its exercise, neither the government nor the defendant exhausted all of their peremptory challenges.
him upon his evidence in chief with the same latitude as though he were an ordinary witness as to circumstances connecting him with the crime, and even if, as claimed in this case, the subject matter of the cross-examination has no tendency to connect the witness with the crime, if it is plain that there is no injury, the exception is not available.
While a remark by the district attorney in summing up that "a man under such circumstances who could drink a cup of coffee ought to be hung on general principles" is improper, if, on protest of defendant's counsel, the court stops the district attorney, who apologizes and withdraws the remark, an exception by defendant is frivolous, and the court is not open to censure for so describing it.
There is no reversible error in the court stating. in a trial for murder of several persons. that defendant was not charged with the murder of a person whose name is stated in the bill as having been murdered, the court also saying that, if he was so charged. there was no evidence to support the charge.
The writ of error in this case brings before this Court a judgment of conviction of murder rendered in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The plaintiffs in error were indicted at the fall term, 1905, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Wilmington Division, for the murder, by shooting, on the 28th day of October, 1905, of E. R. Rumill, captain, John T. Hall, mate, John Falbe, cook, C. L. Smith, engineer, and John S. Coakley, seaman, committed on the high seas and within the jurisdiction of the court wherein the indictment was found, and on board of the American vessel called the Harry A. Berwin. The indictment alleged that, after the shooting, the deceased were thrown into the sea. Upon the trial of the plaintiffs in error in November, 1905, in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, to which court the indictment had been duly transferred for trial, they were convicted of the murder of the first four named in the indictment. The court told the jury that the defendants were not charged with killing Coakley, and, if charged in the bill, there was no evidence to support the charge.
There is no question made as to the sufficiency of the indictment or of the jurisdiction of the court.
It appeared on the trial that the plaintiffs in error were part of the crew, and, together with one Henry Scott, who was also one of the crew, were the only living persons found on the Berwin when they were arrested by the crew of a small boat that was put off from a schooner called the Blanche H. King, which was then proceeding on a voyage up the coast from Brunswick, Georgia, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and had arrived at a point about 32 miles southwest from Cape Fear bar. The attention of Captain Hohn W. Taylor of the schooner was directed about 9 o'clock in the evening in the month of October, 1905, to a vessel just ahead of him on account of the manner in which she was carrying her lights, and because she was right in the track of his own vessel. He sent a small boat, manned by several seamen, to the vessel (which proved to be the Berwin), and the boat brought back the plaintiffs in error and Scott, who, on being brought to the deck of the vessel and telling their story, were put in irons by direction of the captain, who then steered his vessel for the nearest port, which was Southport, North Carolina, where the men were delivered to the federal authorities. Upon the trial of the indictment which was found against the plaintiffs in error, the man Scott was called as a witness, and swore to the murder by the plaintiffs in error while the vessel was at sea, and on or about October 28, 1905.
Scott was subsequently indicted alone for the murders, and was also convicted, the plaintiffs in error being witnesses against him, and they testified that he committed the murders. He has been reprieved by the President, so that he may be again used as a witness against the plaintiffs in error in case of a new trial being granted to them.
MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the Court.
"While the jury was being impaneled, several jurors were called, and as each juror appeared, he was told by the district attorney to stand at the foot of the panel, without any challenge on the part of the government and without an opportunity given to defendants to accept, challenge for favor or cause, or to peremptorily challenge any and all of said jurors so stood aside."
"To each and to every action in this respect on the part of the government, the defendants promptly and in due time objected, but the court overruled the objections, saying the state practice would be followed, and there was no United States statute on the subject; to which ruling of the court the defendants, by their counsel, then and there duly excepted, and the exceptions were allowed. It appeared that neither the government nor the defense had exhausted all their peremptory challenges when the jury was impaneled."
The inquiry is whether the court had the power to permit such conditional challenge by the government.
"Originally, by the common law, the Crown could challenge peremptorily, without limitation as to number. By act of Parliament passed in the time of Edward the First, the right to challenge was restricted to challenges for cause. But, by a rule of court, the Crown was not obliged to show cause until the whole panel was called. Those not accepted on the call were directed to stand aside. If, when the panel was gone through, a full jury was obtained, it was taken for the trial. If, however, a full jury was not obtained, the Crown was required to show cause against the jurors who had been directed to stand aside, and, if no sufficient cause was shown, the jury was completed from them."
the State of North Carolina ever since the foundation of the state, and it has also prevailed in South Carolina and Pennsylvania.
In 1790, Congress provided for granting certain peremptory challenges to the defendant (1 Stat. 119, c. 9), but no peremptory challenge was allowed to the government.
"But a still more direct conclusion against the right may be drawn from the admitted right of the Crown to challenge in criminal cases, and the practice under that right. We do not say that the same right belongs to any of the states in the Union, for there may be a diversity in this respect as to the local jurisprudence or practice. The inquiry here is not as to what is the state prerogative, but, simply what is the common law doctrine as to the point under consideration. Until the statute of 33 Edw. I, the Crown might challenge peremptorily any juror without assigning any cause, but that statute took away that right, and narrowed the challenges of the Crown to those for cause shown. But the practice since this statute has uniformly been, and it is clearly settled, not to compel the Crown to show cause at the time of objection taken, but to put aside the juror until the whole panel is gone through. Hawkins, on this point, says (2 Pl.Cr. c. 43, §§ 2, 3),"
if the defendant, in order to oblige the King to show cause, presently challenge, touts paravaile; yet it hath been adjudged that the defendant shall be first put to show all his causes of challenge before the King need to show any."
"And the learned author is fully borne out by the authorities which he cites, and the same rule has been recognized down to the present times."
"This acknowledged right of peremptory challenge existing in the Crown before the statute of 33 Edw. I, and the uniform practice which has prevailed since that statute, to allow a qualified and conditional exercise of the same right, if other sufficient jurors remained for the trial, demonstrate, as we think, that no such power of selecting his jury belongs, or was ever supposed to belong, by the common law, to the prisoner, and that therefore he could not demand, as matter of right, a separate trial to enable him to exercise it. In a separate or joint trial, he could at any time be defeated by the Crown of such choice by its own admitted prerogative."
It is true that the matter involved in the Marchant case did not call for this statement, as the direct question was not in issue. It was made argumentatively, as one reason for denying the right claimed by defendant in that case. Subsequently the Circuit Court of the United States in Pennsylvania, in 1830, followed the views expressed in the Marchant case. United States v. Wilson, Bald. 78, Fed.Cas. No. 16,730. In that case, the right was claimed by the district attorney and denied by counsel for defendant, but was allowed by the court upon the ground that it considered the opinion of the Supreme Court as a recognition of the qualified right of the United States to challenge, and directed the juror to be put aside until the panel was exhausted, declaring that, if that should happen and the juror be again called, the United States could not then challenge him without showing cause.
"this qualified right of challenge without cause is the settled doctrine of the common law, and has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Marchant, supra, and has been practiced upon in some of the circuits."
The judge then said that the doubt as to the right of the government arose by reason of the passage of the Act of July 20, 1840, 5 Stat. 394, c. 47, providing for the designation of jurors to serve in the federal courts and empowering those courts to make rules and regulations for conforming the designation and impaneling of jurors to the laws and usages of the states as they may exist at the time. A rule to that effect has been adopted in the Southern District of New York. The justice further stated in his opinion that the act of 1840 applied only to the mode and manner of drawing or selecting the jury -- that is, by ballot, lot, or otherwise -- as prescribed by the state laws, and that it did not affect the questions involved in the right of challenging the jurors called, whether peremptorily or for cause, and that those questions stand upon the common law except where regulated by the act of Congress. Judge Betts, in his opinion, which is set forth in the report, held that no such right existed, certainly not in the states where such practice was not recognized.
"gave to the King a qualified right of challenge in these cases, which had the effect to set aside the juror till the panel was gone through with, without assigning cause, and if there was not a full jury without the person so challenged, then the cause must be assigned or the juror would be sworn."
"The Court is of opinion that the right of challenge by the prisoner, recognized by the act of 1790, does not necessarily draw along with it this qualified right, existing at common law, by the government, and that, unless the laws or usages of the state, adopted by rule under the act of 1840, allow it on behalf of the prosecution, it should be rejected, conforming in this respect the practice to the state law."
now presented is whether, after Congress has dealt with the subject of such challenges, the former qualified right of challenge on the part of the government still exists in those states where such practice obtains, and the practice has been adopted by a rule of court in the courts of the United States. Section 800 of the Revised statutes of the United States in substance reproduces the act of 1840, above referred to, so that the subject must be considered with reference to that section as well as the statute which gives challenges to the government.
The question arose in United States v. Butler, 1 Hughes 457-467. The trial was held before Chief Justice Waite and Judge Bond in the United States Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina in April, 1877. Upon the impaneling of the jury, a juror was called and was examined on his voir dire, and was then told by the counsel for the government to stand aside. The defense objected, and insisted that the prosecution must either exercise the right of challenge or waive it entirely and at once. The court held that this rule was in force when the government had no right of peremptory challenge, but as the right of peremptory challenge had been given to the prosecution, it should be given the same right with the defense, and should exercise the right at once or not at all.
This decision of the federal circuit court is the only one brought to our attention that has been decided since the passage of the acts of Congress giving the right of peremptory challenge to the government. It was by virtue of the act of 1840, already mentioned (Rev.Stat. § 800), that the federal courts have been enabled to adopt the laws and usages of the state in respect to the challenging of jurors, whether peremptorily or for cause. United States v. Shackleford, supra.
order under the act of 1840. As the statute prescribed the number of challenges to the defendant, the court could not therefore proceed under the act of 1840, and by rule or order prescribe any other number, or none at all, in accordance with the practice of the state courts in that respect. The federal statute was held to be exclusive of any other regulation on the subject because to give any other number of challenges to the defendant would be inconsistent with the provisions of the federal statute, even though the matter of peremptory challenge was provided for by the state practice. In such a case, the power to provide by rule of court was to be regarded as excepted from the provisions of the act of 1840.
But, in giving by statute the right of peremptory challenge to the government in certain cases, it does not necessarily affect the exercise of the power of the government to challenge in this qualified manner. A conditional or qualified right of challenge is not inconsistent with the existence of the right of peremptory challenge given by statute. The two may coexist, and the government may exercise the right of peremptory challenge given by statute and in the same case exercise the qualified or conditional challenge, as in the case at bar.
It was stated in the opinion in the Shackleford case that, unless the laws or usages of the state (adopted by rule by the federal courts under the act of 1840) allowed it, the right should be rejected, and the practice conformed in that respect to the state law. But, in North Carolina, the state law permits such qualified right of challenge, and the court in this case made the order to follow the state practice, there being no United States statute on the subject.
In Pennsylvania, which is one of the states where the practice has always obtained, the supreme court held that a statute giving peremptory challenges does not take away this right of the government. Haines v. Commonwealth, 100 Pa. 317, 322; Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 140 Pa. 555, 560.
right remains notwithstanding the enactment of a law giving peremptory challenges to the state. State v. Benton, 19 N.C. N.C. 196, 203; State v. Hensley 94 N.C. 1021.
The courts of Georgia and Florida are of a different opinion. Sealy v. State, 1 Ga. 213; Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291, 315.
We are of opinion that the passage of the acts of Congress granting peremptory challenges to the government has not taken away the qualified right of challenge under discussion in this case. As we have said, there is certainly nothing in the statute granting peremptory challenges to the government to prevent its exercise of the other kind of challenge when permitted in the state and where it has been adopted by the federal court as a rule, or by special order, as in this case. The exercise of this right is under the supervision of the court, and it ought not to be permitted to be exercised unreasonably, or so that the interests of the defendant might be unduly prejudiced. The court should take special care to that end.
In this case, it appears that neither the government nor the defendants had exhausted all their peremptory challenges when the jury was obtained. We think it plain that the government's right of qualified challenge was not unreasonably exercised, and the rights of the plaintiffs in error suffered no injury by the course permitted by the court.
Another question argued arises upon the cross-examination by the district attorney of the plaintiff in error Adams, who voluntarily became a witness on the trial on his own behalf and in behalf of his fellow plaintiff in error. The cross-examination referred to the conduct of the witness on a previous voyage and on a different vessel, in regard to which nothing had been said on the examination of the witness in chief.
be exercised in the case of an ordinary witness, as to the circumstances connecting him with the crime. Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U. S. 304.
It is contended on the part of the plaintiffs in error that, within this rule, the cross-examination was improper, as the subject matter of the cross-examination had no tendency to connect the prisoner with the alleged crime for which he was on trial.
The district attorney, on his cross-examination, began with questions relating to the experience which the witness had had as a seaman, and asked him in regard to the vessels that he had sailed on. It appeared that he had been one of the crew, among others, of the schooner Benefit for some fifteen months, whose captain was a man named Falkner. He was then asked if, during the latter part of the fifteen months he was on the schooner, he did not have trouble and try to create insubordination on board that vessel. This question was duly objected to by counsel for defendants, and the objection overruled by the court and an exception allowed. He answered that he was not logged, and then stated that the trouble arose from the cook's giving them molasses to make tea, which he said was not right, and he and three other men went to the captain and asked him if he thought it was right, and the captain said they did not have sugar, and would have to use molasses. The witness took the tea and threw it overboard; that he never went among the men and tried to create dissatisfaction among them; that the captain never threatened to put him in irons, and when he left the Benefit, he shipped on another vessel named the Benj. Russell, where he stayed for over three months.
insubordination. The government made no attempt to contradict the evidence of the witness on this subject, and hence there could have been no harm arising from the cross-examination. There are some state authorities which hold that the error, if any, is not cured by answer of the witness denying the charge. But we think the better rule is where, as in this case, it is plain that there is no injury, the exception is not available.
The plaintiffs in error also ask for a new trial because of the remarks made by the district attorney in summing up to the jury, and the action of the court thereon.
In the course of his remarks, and in speaking of the fact that, during the time these murders were being perpetrated, one of the plaintiffs in error had testified that he drank some coffee, the district attorney said, "A man, under such circumstances, who would drink coffee ought to be hung on general principle." This remark the counsel for the plaintiffs in error objected to, and, after hearing counsel on the objection, the court directed the district attorney to confine himself to a proper argument, and thereupon the district attorney expressed his regret if he had made an improper argument, and withdrew the remark.
When the objection was first made by counsel for the plaintiffs in error, the court asked if he wanted to cut the district attorney off from making any argument, but thereupon the court immediately directed the district attorney to confine himself to a proper argument, as above stated.
Counsel for the plaintiffs in error objected to both the remarks of the district attorney and the comments of the court as made, and counsel asked to be allowed to file an exception. Upon this request, the court replied, "I will give counsel the benefit of a statement that he has made an exception which the court considers frivolous."
in error. Counsel, in summing up to a jury, are under some excitement, and may naturally make a remark or statement which is improper. But there is not on that account any ground laid for setting aside a verdict where, as in this case, the court held it was improper and the counsel withdrew and apologized for it. Dunlop v. United States, 165 U. S. 486, 165 U. S. 498. Under such circumstances, it does seem as if the exception were frivolous, and the court, in stating its opinion to that effect, is not open to censure.
The error assigned that the court said the plaintiffs in error were not charged with the murder of Coakley, when in fact the bill contained his name, has not been pressed, and we think there is no merit in it. The court said that, if charged in the bill, there was no evidence to support such charge. Certainly no harm was thereby done the plaintiffs in error.
Upon full consideration of all the objections urged by counsel for the plaintiffs in error, we think no ground appears for granting a new trial. The judgment is affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 800
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.