Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

directing the clerk and jury commissioner to draw jurors for the next term, an indictment was not quashed because no such writ had been issued. Under the former statute it was held, that a judge from another district, duly designated to act, might make the necessary order for the selection of a grand jury.

A venire is the regular process to summon talesmen for a petit jury. It seems that no order for that purpose is required. When the order was made in another district by a judge assigned to hold court in the district where the panel was summoned a challenge to the array upon this ground was overruled. Such a venire may issue after the grand jury has been discharged for talesmen to fill the box on the trial of an indictment which the grand jurors have found. In Alaska when means of transportation are difficult and many are leaving the district for the winter, and only a few of the persons summoned under a regular venire attend, the court may in its discretion then issue a special venire without compelling the attendance of all the persons summoned under the former writ.9

In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it has been held that the District Court has power to issue a writ of venire facias directing the defendant to answer an indictment.10

tion, or upon a notification by the District Attorney that such jury will be needed, orders a venire to issue therefor, and either of said courts may in term order a grand jury to be summoned at such time and to serve such time as it may direct, whenever in its judgment it may be proper to do so.' I am aware that the immediate purpose of this last provision was to do away with the invariable presence of a grand jury at every term of a Circuit or District Court, and to leave it discretionary with the judges whether and when such a body should be convened; but I think the fair meaning of the enactment is that Congress either makes it, or recognizes it as already being, a rigid, unyielding requirement of the law that no grand jury shall

be summoned unless a venire facias
has therefore issued, if in the vaca-
tion, by order of one of the judges,
or, if in term time, by order of the
court.''
U. S. v. Antz, 16 Fed.
119, 122.

8 Breese v. U. S., C. C. A., 203 Fed. 824.

4 May v. U. S., 199 Fed. 53. 5 Apgar v. U. S., C. C. A., 255 Fed. 16.

6 Apgar v. U. S., C. C. A., 255 Fed. 16.

7 Ibid.

8 St. Clair v. U. S., 154 U. S. 134, 38 L. ed. 936.

9 Campbell v. U. S., 221 Fed. 186; but see Johnson v. U. S., C. C. A., 247 Fed. 92.

10 U. S. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 237 Fed. 292.

"Writs of venire facias, when directed by the court, shall issue from the clerk's office, and shall be served and returned by the marshal in person, or by his deputy; or, in case the marshal or his deputy is not an indifferent person, or is interested in the event of the cause, by such fit person as may be specially appointed for that purpose by the court, who shall administer to him an oath that he will truly and impartially serve and return the writ. Any person named in such writ who resides elsewhere than at the place at which the court is held, shall be served by the marshal mailing a copy thereof to such person commanding him to attend as a juror at a time and place designated therein, which copy shall be registered and deposited in the postoffice addressed to such person at his usual post-office address. And the receipt of the person so addressed for such registered copy shall be regarded as personal service of such writ upon such person, and no mileage shall be allowed for the service of such person. The postage and registry fee shall be paid by the marshal and allowed him in the settlement of his accounts. "11

When the prosecution has been instigated by the marshal or is the result of an investigation to the expense of which he has contributed, he is not an indifferent person and a special officer should be appointed to serve the writ.12 It seems that the venire facias may be issued by the deputy clerk in the absence of his principal.13 A venire is not illegal because the names of the jurors are attached thereto, instead of being inserted in the body thereof.14 The objection to the omission to issue a venire facias is waived unless seasonably taken.15

§ 509. Qualifications of grand and petit jurors. The Judicial Code provides: "Jurors to serve in the courts of the United States, in each State respectively, shall have the same.

11 Jud. Code, § 279, 36 St. at L. 1087; see supra, § 418.

12 Johnson v. U. S., C. C. A., 247 Fed. 92. It has been held that a venire is irregular when addressed to the marshal of the District of Louisiana," there being no such of ficer and the title of the executive officer of the court being "the marshal of the Eastern District of

Louisiana.'' Frisbie v. U. S., 157
U. S. 160, 163.

13 U. S. v. Greene, 113 Fed. 683. 53.

53.

14 May v. U. S., C. C. A., 199 Fed.

15 U. S. v. Antz, 16 Fed. 119; Powers v. U. S., 223 U. S. 303, 56 L. ed. 448.

qualifications, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, and be entitled to the same exemptions as jurors of the highest court of law in such State may have and be entitled to at the time when such jurors for service in the courts of the United States are summoned."1 This relieves talesmen from any disability imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment.2 No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.3

By the Judicial Code, "No person shall serve as a petit juror in any District Court more than one term in a year; and it shall be sufficient cause of challenge to any juror called to be sworn in any cause that he has summoned and attended said court as a juror at any term of said court held within one year prior to the time of such challenge."4 Since this section deals specifically with the effect of prior service, it excludes the operation of State statutes on the same subject.5 Prior service as a petit juror in the State courts is no disqualification for similar service in the Federal courts.6 It is not necessary that any court rules should specify the qualifications. Without any court rule, jurors not having them may be challenged.7

A State law relating to the challenges of jurors as to the favor or to the array pertains to their qualifications and exemptions,

§ 509. 1 Jud. Code, § 275, 56 St. at L. 1087, re-enacting U. S. R. S., § 800. It has been said: that the Federal Courts have no discretion concerning the qualifications and exemptions of jurors. The law is that they shall have the like qualifications and shall be entitled to like exemptions that jurors of the higher courts of the State had at the time of the enactment of the statute, or shall hereafter have in such State. U. S. v. Wilson, 6 McLean, 604, Fed. Cas. No. 16,737; U. S. v. Gardner, 5 Chicago Leg. News, 501, Fed. Cas. No. 15,187; U. S. v. Coit, 1 Car. L. Rep. 346, Fed. Cas. No. 14,829. Con

tra, U. S. v. Price, 3 Hall, L. J. 121, Fed. Cas. No. 16,088.

2 Re Carnes, 31 Fed. 397.

3 Jud. Code, § 278, 36 St. at L. 1087, re-enacting in part Act of March 1, 1875, ch. 114, § 4, 18 St. at L. 336.

4 U. S. R. S., § 812, Act of June 30, 1879, ch. 52, § 2, 21 St. at L. 43, Act of March 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 286, 36 St. at L. 1166, Comp. St., § 1263.

5 Papernow v. Standard Oil Co. of N. Y., 228 Fed. 399. 6 Ibid.

7 U. S. v. Collins, 1 Woods, 499, Fed. Cas. No. 14,837.

8

and is in force, and is followed by the Federal courts; but the right to a peremptory challenge, which sets aside a juryman without regard to his qualification or exemption, is not affected by the statute. Those who are exempt from serving on juries, are not disqualified, unless there is some statutory regulation to that effect.10 It has been said that, where the State laws provide that jurors shall be selected from the book of the receiver of tax returns in each county, the fact that a man's name there appears implies that he is qualified, but does not establish the fact. A grand juror does not become disqualified if after he has been drawn and summoned he loses the property which by the State law was required for his qualification.12

It was held not to be a ground of challenge to a grand juror, under the statutes of California, that his name was not on the last preceding assessment roll of the county from which he was summoned.18 A juror does not lose his qualification by residence in the district where he is regularly employed during the navigable season because he is accustomed to leave it every winter. 14 In considering objections to grand jurors, the Federal courts are not restricted to such as are specifically designated by the State laws, but they may give effect to any objection which goes to the fitness of the men to serve.15 The court may, of its own motion, discharge grand jurors, when those substituted are not disqualified; 16 and the court may, of its own motion, enforce other objections to grand jurors than those prescribed by the State statutes.17 It has been said that the word qualifications, has respect to the juror personally and may relate to his age,

8 U. S. v. Douglass, 2 Blatchf. 207, Fed. Cas. No. 14,989; U. S. v. Reed, 2 Blatchf. 435, Fed. Cas. No. 16,134; U. S. v. Tallman, 10 Blatchf. 21, Fed. Cas. No. 16,429; U. S. v. Tuska, 14 Blatchf. 5, Fed. Cas. No. 16,550.

9 U. S. v. Shackleford, 18 How. 588, 15 L. ed. 495; U. S. v. Douglass, 2 Blatchf. 207, Fed. Cas. No. 14,989; U. S. v. Devlin, 6 Blatchf. 71, Fed. Cas. No. 14,953. Other sections of the Revised Statutes regulate peremptory challenges. U. S. R. S.,

§§ 819, 1031,,1063. See infra, § 526.

10 U. S. v. Gardner, 5 Chicago Leg. News, 501, Fed. Cas. No. 15,187.

11 U. S. v. Collins, 1 Woods, 499, Fed. Cas. No. 14,837.

12 U. S. v. Gradwell, 227 Fed. 243. 13 U. S. v. Benson, 31 Fed. 896. 14 Rooney v. Barnette, C. C. A., 200 Fed. 700.

15 U. S. v. Benson, 31 Fed. 896.
16 U. S. v. Jones, 69 Fed. 973.
17 U. S. v. Jones, 69 Fed. 973.

property, citizenship, or anything else belonging to his personal standing; 18 but does not refer to special reasons, which do not exclude the juror from the panel, but only preclude him from acting in the particular case; 19 and that, consequently, the prosecuting witness may serve upon the grand jury, although he was disqualified under the State laws to act in the case, where he is a witness.20 The fact that a man is a member of a political party, and a strong partisan, does not disqualify him as a grand juror in election cases.21 It was held that the fact that a grand juror had said, when he heard that strikers were destroying private property, that they ought to be shot, did not disqualify him from taking part in the finding of an indictment against a striker for obstructing mails and commerce; 22 that an officer who had issued a warrant of arrest for the accused, and had expressed his opinion as to his guilt, was not disqualified from serving upon a grand jury, which returned an indictment against him.23 The employee of a railroad under Government control was not disqualified as an employee of the Government.24 But a plea in abatement was sustained and an indictment dismissed, when it appeared that one of the grand jurors had served on a jury which had, on a former trial, found the accused guilty of the same offense.25

§ 510. Selection of grand and petit jurors. "All such jurors, grand and petit, including those summoned during the session of the court, shall be publicly drawn from a box containing, at the time of each drawing, the names of not less than three hundred persons, possessing the qualifications prescribed in the section last preceding, which names shall have been placed therein by the clerk of such court, or a duly qualified deputy clerk, and a commissioner, to be appointed by the judge thereof, or by the judge senior in commission in districts having more than one judge, which commissioner shall be a citizen of good stand

18 U. S. v. Collins, 1 Woods, 499, Fed. Cas. No. 14,837.

19 U. S. v. Williams, 1 Dillon, 485, Fed. Cas. No. 16,716.

20 U. S. v. Williams, 1 Dillon, 485, 495; Fed. Cas. No. 16,716. Contra, U. S. v. Reed, 2 Blatchf. 435, Fed.

Cas. No. 16,134.

21 U. S. v. Eagan, 30 Fed. 608. 22 U. S. v. Clune, 62 Fed. 798. 23 U. S. v. Belvin, 46 Fed. 381. 24 Lee U. Ong v. U. S., C. C. A., 264 Fed. 315.

25 U. S. v. Jones, 31 Fed. 725.

« ForrigeFortsett »