Opinion ID: 362454
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: walker's other claims

Text: 44 It is no abuse of discretion for the trial judge to choose to conduct the voir dire himself. United States v. Wertis, 5 Cir. 1974, 505 F.2d 683, Cert. denied, 1975, 422 U.S. 1045, 95 S.Ct. 2662, 45 L.Ed.2d 697; United States v. Fruge, 5 Cir. 1974, 492 F.2d 1163, Cert. denied, 419 U.S. 856, 95 S.Ct. 101, 42 L.Ed.2d 88; Hawkins v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 434 F.2d 738; See F.R.Cr.P. 24(a). 45 Although defendants assert error in the district court's failure to ask specifically requested questions on voir dire, Judges Roney and Vance have concluded that the voir dire examination conducted by the trial judge was adequate and fair. The trial court asked questions during voir dire designed to disclose any prejudice on the part of the venire panel. There was no abuse of discretion in its refusal to ask the questions in the precise form requested by defendant. United States v. Ochoa, 5 Cir. 1976, 543 F.2d 564. 46 The questions requested by Walker's counsel in full were: 47 Mr. Walker is charged with conspiring and attempting to import marijuana into the United States. Mr. Walker admits that he was on board the vessel NAHOA which contained a large quantity of marijuana. Mr. Walker further admits that he procured the marijuana that was on board the vessel NAHOA. Two of the essential elements of these offenses are that the marijuana found on the vessel NAHOA was destined for the United States and that the defendant Walker knew that the marijuana was destined for the United States. 48 (a) If the Government fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the marijuana found on the vessel NAHOA was destined for the United States, would you hesitate to return a verdict of Not Guilty? 49 (b) If the Government fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Walker knew that the marijuana found on the vessel NAHOA was destined for the United States, would you hesitate to return a verdict of Not Guilty? 50 (c) Would the fact that Mr. Walker was involved in procuring the marijuana prejudice you in any manner against Mr. Walker? 51 It was proper for the trial judge not to put parts (a) and (b) of the request to potential jurors. These sections merely ask whether the jury will, as required, fulfill its duty to decide the case according to the law and the evidence. They are not designed to elicit any particular source of potential prejudice and were adequately covered in the court's instructions. Counsel does not complain of their omission. 52 The third requested question, the denial of which is claimed as error, was: 53 Would the fact that Mr. Walker was involved in procuring the marijuana prejudice you in any manner against Mr. Walker? 54 Judges Roney and Vance conclude that it was not improper to refuse to ask this question. They reason that whether or not Mr. Walker procured the marijuana was certainly relevant to the precise crimes here charged and such evidence could be expected to be prejudicial to a contrary contention. Counsel may have intended to ask if the marijuana procurement would so influence a juror that an objective consideration could not be made of the critical question whether Walker knew the destination of the marijuana. As the question was phrased, however, a yes answer would not have revealed this information; a no answer could neither be expected nor be consistent with the juror's promise to decide the case on the evidence and instructions. A majority of this Court thus deciding there was no abuse of discretion in the failure to ask the requested questions on voir dire, the trial court's decision is affirmed. 55