Court Opinion

ID: 9461802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:25:05.90134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:16.433914
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I concur in Judge Sprecher’s dissent. I also dissent from the court’s opinion on another ground: the trial judge’s handling of the voir dire examination of the prospective jurors.
Judge Stevens, writing for the majority, treats the matter in footnote 20 of his opinion. There he says that upon reviewing the record the court adheres to the original conclusion that the entire examination brought out sufficient information for peremptory challenge purposes, but that the court disapproves “the trial judge’s refusal to inquire about the marital status of male jurors or to ascertain the employment status of their spouses.” Although the court voices its disapproval, there is no consequence. Apparently the error is chalked up as harmless. This flaw in the examination, along with others I shall mention, was not harmless error in my opinion. Certainly enough' has been said by this circuit to make clear to the trial bench the necessity of an adequate voir dire examination and the danger of truncated, hurried procedures which may mitigate against the selection of unbiased, qualified jurors. United States v. Lewin, 467 F.2d 1132 (7th Cir. 1972); United States v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972).
As we indicated in United States v. Lewin the voir dire examination should include questions that go beyond what may bring out information that could be the basis for a challenge for cause. It should also include questions relevant to the nature of the case and the identity of the parties that might establish the basis for an informed, intelligent peremptory challenge. Otherwise, the right to exercise challenges preemptorily would be useless. As this court said in United States v. Dellinger: “[If] this right is not to be an empty one, the defendants must, upon request, be permitted sufficient inquiry into the background and attitudes of the jurors to enable them to exercise intelligently their peremptory challenges . . . .” 472 F.2d at 368.
With these pronouncements in mind, how can it be said that information that a prospective juror has previously served as a petit or grand juror in criminal matters is not relevant background for making a peremptory challenge decision. Yet the trial judge here refused to ask the relevant question. As the defendant argues, the failure of the jurors, upon being asked, to express any reason why they could not fairly and impartially try the case might not alert them to unperceived prejudice or bias that previous jury service may have created in their minds. Cf. United States v. Martin, 507 F.2d 428 (7th Cir. 1974).
Furthermore, the refusal of the trial judge to inquire about the length of residence of the jurors at their present addresses and about their residence immediately prior thereto deprived the defendant of relevant information concerning the social background of the jurors.
Finally, the trial judge did not ask a question concerning a highly relevant aspect of the jurors’ possible experience with zoning matters. He did frame the following question to them:
Now we are going to see if we can find out whether any of you have ever *62had any property in which there was some discussion, or maybe more than a discussion, in regard to changing the zoning regulations in regard to this property, and again I see no hands raised, so I am assuming that none of you have ever had property where you had any desire to have the zoning changed.
But more should have been asked. Inquiry should have been made, as defendant requested, as to whether any of the jurors had ever resisted or taken a “position” with respect to any proposed zoning change. Some juror may have had experience, good or bad, with a zoning request that did not affect his real estate directly but did affect indirectly his interests either as an adjacent property owner or a nearby resident. Such information could have been the basis for a peremptory challenge.
A meaningful opportunity for the defendant to exercise his right to peremptory challenges was thus thwarted by the trial judge. The Government argues in its brief:
In this case, as in all cases, the voir dire could have been more elaborate and penetrating. But if the overcrowded criminal docket in this jurisdiction is not to buckle under its own weight, a trial judge who, on the facts presented, does not impinge upon the essential demands of fairness must be accorded leeway in determining when the voir dire has produced a fair jury capable of just judgment.
In the first place there was an impingement upon the essential demands of fairness. Secondly, overcrowded criminal dockets are no excuse for such impingement. Given an overcrowded docket, other means could have been utilized to accommodate the need to save time and yet afford fairness. For example, a questionnaire, formulated at a pretrial conference, which would have covered most if not all the relevant questions, could have been furnished the prospective jurors before they were called into the courtroom. Regardless of such suggested solutions, shortcut procedures, as here, do not comport with fair trials. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.