Opinion ID: 1233313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: the impanelment

Text: Within five days before the prospective members of the grand jury reported to the court, the Seattle newspapers published articles with these headlines: BECK APPARENTLY STOLE $300,000 FROM UNION, SAYS PROBE AIDE. Underneath this headline is the following statement: Labor Probe at a Glance: Robert Kennedy, counsel for the Senate Rackets  Investigating Committee, said it would appear that $300,000 to $400,000 which Dave Beck `borrowed' from the Teamsters actually was `stolen.' (See below.) Seattle Times, May 15, 1957. BECK MISUSED UNION POSITION IN 52 INSTANCES, SAYS PROBER. (There then follows in the body of the article a detailed list of 52 instances of alleged misuse by appellant of his union position.) Seattle Times, May 16, 1957. SENATE DOCUMENT CHARGES BECK `TOOK' $300,000. Seattle Post Intelligencer, May 17, 1957. McCLELLAN BLASTS BECK FOR `RASCALITY.' Seattle Post Intelligencer, May 17, 1957. The grand jury was impaneled on May 20, 1957. After explaining the general qualifications of grand jurors, the court examined each prospective member as to his or her particular qualifications to act as grand juror. These questions related to the juror's occupation, whether he had ever been a member of the teamsters' union (or any affiliate thereof) or an officer in any union. He was further asked if he were acquainted with any officer of the teamsters' union. One prospective juror was asked if he knew appellant and he replied in the negative. The final question which the court asked each prospective juror was: Is there anything about sitting on this grand jury that might embarrass you at all? The court excused five prospective jurors [5] and examined five more in the same manner. The seventeen persons then in the jury box were accepted as constituting the grand jury and the court administered the oath to them. It is to be noted that none of the jurors who were accepted was asked if he had read anything about the alleged activities of the officers of the teamsters' union in the Seattle newspapers or in nationally circulated magazines, particularly those articles relating to the proceedings before the Senate Committee. Neither was any juror asked if he had heard any part of these proceedings on the radio or had seen them live on television. Nor was there any interrogation of the jurors had to ascertain whether any of them had heard or participated in any discussions concerning these matters. The general question as to whether the jurors would be embarrassed in any way in sitting on this grand jury was, in my opinion, not sufficient to disclose any bias or prejudice (conscious or unconscious) on the part of the jurors. In view of the unprecedented publicity which had been given to the Senate Committee hearings within the three months preceding the impanelment of the grand jury, I think that the jurors should have been interrogated for the existence of possible bias and prejudice against the officers of the teamsters' union. The authorities bearing on this subject will be discussed after I review the court's charge to the grand jury.