Opinion ID: 1472494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Empaneling of Jury.

Text: Was there error in this? On the day the case was called for trial, but before it was actually called, it appeared there would not be a sufficient number of jurors present to constitute the panel of twenty-eight rendered necessary by the provision for peremptory challenges. Judicial Code, § 287, 28 USCA § 424. To take care of this situation the court directed the marshal to summon ten additional jurors from among the bystanders in the courthouse or in the immediate vicinity of the courthouse. When the case was called for trial the court directed the clerk to call a jury of twenty-eight men, calling from the regular jury panel until that should be exhausted. The clerk did so and twenty-three jurors responded to the call. The court then directed the marshal, in accordance with section 280 of the Judicial Code, 28 USCA § 417, to summon from among the bystanders in the court room five additional jurors. Thereafter six members of the panel were challenged and excused for cause, and six additional bystanders were called from the courtroom to take their places. All this was done over the defendants' objection, which was to the fact that the so-called bystanders had been provided in advance of the case being called for trial by the first order of the court to the marshal. Eight members of the jury that tried defendants were from the so-called bystanders or talesmen, while four were from the regular panel of twenty-three. It later appeared that the persons summoned to act as bystanders pursuant to the order of the court were selected in part from lists of prospective or soliciting jurors kept by the marshal and his deputies, and in part by the marshal from various business houses about the city. In selecting men from the various business houses the marshal testified that his practice was as follows: I went in the place of business and went to the manager and told him I was going to take a man out of there for a juror, and I would let him pick the man if he wanted to, but I told him I wanted a man that looked to me like he would make a good juror, and if the man he picked didn't suit me, I would pick another. In one instance he went to the assistant manager and told him I wanted to take a man for jury service, that he could designate the man that would disorganize the firm the least, and if he looked good I would take him, and if he didn't I would take another one, and the man he picked I didn't like so I picked another one. It is not claimed the procedure resulted in any prejudice to defendants but it is claimed that the jury selected in this way was not a legal one. We are unable to find reversible error either in the order of the court or in the way in which the order was carried out. The purpose of the court in anticipating a failure of the regular panel and directing the summoning of bystanders in advance of the calling of the case for trial was both to save time and to assure the availability as jurors of other persons than the usual courtroom habitues. This did not amount to the court's handpicking the jurors  they were still to be selected as well as summoned by the duly authorized officers for that purpose, viz., the marshal. In this respect the instant case is sharply distinguishable from both Gideon v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 52 F.(2d) 427, and Rhodman v. State, 153 Miss. 15, 120 So. 201, relied on by defendants. Nor was the order of the court in violation of section 280 of the Judicial Code, § 417, title 28, USCA, which reads as follows: When, from challenges or otherwise, there is not a petit jury to determine any civil or criminal cause, the marshal or his deputy shall, by order of the court in which such defect of jurors happens, return jurymen from the bystanders sufficient to complete the panel; and when the marshal or his deputy is disqualified as aforesaid, jurors may be so returned by such disinterested person as the court may appoint, and such person shall be sworn, as provided in section 416 of this title. The above provision, as section 804, Revised Statutes, was construed in United States v. Loughery, 13 Blatchf. 267, 26 Fed. Cas. 998, No. 15,631, with reference to exactly the same thing that was done in the instant case, except that it was there done after the case had been called for trial. The court said, referring to said section 804: In this case, the point taken is, that the persons summoned by the marshal, in pursuance of the order of the court, were not bystanders, because not in court when summoned by the marshal. But, these persons were present in court when they were returned by the marshal as present, and when their names were placed upon the panel, and their ballots placed in the wheel; and the statute is complied with, if the persons returned by the marshal are present in court when so returned. How long they had been present, or how they happened to be present, is of no consequence, provided no fraud or collusion or improper action is suggested. At common law, the duty of selecting jurors belongs to the sheriff, and it would seriously embarrass trials if it were held that, when a panel fails by reason of challenges, and talesmen are ordered, the marshal is bound to return the talesmen from those who happen, at the instant of making the order, to be present in court.    They may be persons whose presence has been secured by the accused in anticipation of a failure of the panel. `Persons, who are not bystanders in the court, may be summoned as talesmen, for, when they come in, they are bystanders.' 5 Bac. Abr. `Juries,' p. 337. The trial court in passing on the motion for new trial observed that it had always been the practice in the district in similar situations to summon jurors not only from the courtroom but from the immediate vicinity. That there were not in the court room, in my judgment, at the time the regular jury panel was first qualified on that date, any persons fit to be jurors except those on the regular panel. In fact it appeared those in the court room outside of those on the case and in the regular panel were witnesses who had been summoned in the case; and it would have been impossible at that time before this case was called for trial at the opening hour of court on that day to have found anyone in the court room itself who was qualified to sit as a juror. In the carrying out of the court's order the marshal had a certain amount of discretion. There is no evidence of his having abused it. It appears that he selected the talesmen in this case by the same procedure that he ordinarily followed in similar circumstances. There is a presumption that the marshal will do his duty without favor, unless it affirmatively appears that he is not an indifferent person, or is interested in the event of the cause. Section 279, Judicial Code, 28 USCA § 416. In the latter event it becomes the duty of the court to appoint an indifferent person in the marshal's stead, to select the talesmen. Section 280, Judicial Code, 28 USCA § 417, supra. Thus where it affirmatively appeared that the marshal had himself been active in the detection and prosecution of the defendants to be tried, it was held that he was not a fit person to be intrusted with the power to return jurymen from bystanders to complete the panel for the immediate case, and that the court should have, in conformity with section 280 of the Judicial Code, supra, appointed an indifferent person to act in his stead. Johnson v. United States et al. (C. C. A. 9) 247 F. 92, 95. But the marshal is not an adjunct of the District Attorney's office, and, unless circumstances of the above sort affirmatively appear, he will be presumed to have acted indifferently. Defendants do not charge any fraud or corruption or improper conduct of the marshal, but do charge that this procedure resulted in the packing of the jury by the government against the accused. The mere fact that jurors are summoned by the marshal and paid by the government does not make them government men on a jury. There is no evidence of any packing of the jury. Nor was it necessarily reversible error for the marshal to summon as talesmen men who had previously given their names to the marshal or his deputies as being available for jury service. There is not the slightest evidence that the jurors so chosen were so much as known to the District Attorney's office, or that the motives prompting their availability for jury service, whether financial or otherwise, were in any way inconsistent with the utmost fairness on their part to the defendants. It is an era when many honest and capable men are glad of the opportunity to earn jury fees. Most of the cases cited by defendants involve either positive misconduct or the clearcut violation of an applicable state statute. In the instant case there is no evidence of misconduct on the part of any one, and we are unable to find any violation of either the spirit or the letter of the applicable federal statutes. We think the trial court did the sensible and proper thing under the circumstances.