Court Opinion

ID: 9447069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:24:22.869182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:53.140270
License: Public Domain

DUFFY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I agree with that part of the majority opinion that Sec. 9-1305, Burns’ Indiana Statutes, Annotated — the change of venue statute — is not unconstitutional.
As to the offer of proof by defendant as to jurors Hensley, Johnson, Montgomery and Higginbotham, I agree with the statement in the majority opinion: “We find no violation of defendant’s federal constitutional rights in respect to the rejection by the trial court of these offers.”
However, I must respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which holds that the defendant herein had a fair trial. It is well established that: “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. * * * ” in re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99 L.Ed. 942. In my judgment defendant was not afforded due process of law in the trial which resulted in his conviction and upon which verdict the death sentence was imposed.
There is no dispute as to the fact that more than half of the jurors who sat in the case had preconceived ideas that defendant was guilty of the offense charged. Some of them testified on the voir dire that it would take evidence to change that opinion. Defendant had exhausted his twenty peremptory challenges. His several motions for continuances had been denied.
One of the most important rights of our citizens is the right to a public trial by a fair and impartial jury. The courts should be ever alert to preserve that right untarnished. Baker v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 129 F.2d 779, 781.
I am well aware that a brutal crime is almost certain to receive extensive news coverage by newspapers, radio and television. I realize that in the instant case a prolonged effort was made to obtain an impartial jury, but I am, nevertheless, forced to the conclusion that the jury, as finally constituted, was not impartial. Possibly it was as impartial a jury as could have been found in Gibson County on that date, but that was not sufficient. That did not insure due process.
When it became apparent that an impartial jury could not be obtained, the motion for a further continuance should have been granted. The majority opinion argues that a further delay might not have been helpful, but, on the other hand, that public opinion might have been aroused by the slowness of the judicial process. The passage of time is a great healer. We have no right to speculate that any subsiding of public prejudice would be offset because our fundamental law insists that a defendant in a criminal case shall have a fair trial.
Another reason for the failure of due process in the instant case is that one of the two state prosecuting attorneys who tried the case also acted as a witness on the trial. The majority opinion, while conceding this was error, seems to brush it aside saying: “However, in this case we cannot adjudicate a question of ethics. * * * ” Prosecutor Wever, who participated in examining prospective jurors, interposed objections to testimony, and otherwise actively participated in the trial. He then took the stand as a witness and testified concerning a confession made to him. Over objection, he made the closing argument to the jury, commenting on the evidence including his own testimony. Such conduct was in violation of Canon 19 of the Canon of Professional Ethics. Such conduct was offensive to the rights of the defendant to a fair and impartial trial.