Leonard v. United States

378 U.S. 544, 84 S. Ct. 1696, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1028, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 831
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJune 22, 1964
Docket1017 M
StatusPublished
Cited by95 cases

This text of 378 U.S. 544 (Leonard v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S. Ct. 1696, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1028, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 831 (1964).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner was convicted in separate trials and by different juries of forging and uttering endorsements on government checks, 18 U. S. C. § 495, and of transportation of a forged instrument in interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C. § 2314. The two cases were tried in succession. The jury in the case tried first — forging and uttering endorsements — announced its guilty verdict in open court in the presence of the jury panel from which the jurors who were to try the second case — transportation of a forged instrument — were selected. Petitioner immediately objected to selecting a jury for the second case from among members of the panel who had heard the guilty verdict in the first case. The objection was overruled, and the actual jury which found petitioner guilty in the second case contained five jurors who had heard the verdict in the first case. The conviction in the second case was affirmed on appeal, 324 P. 2d 914, and petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari.

The Solicitor General, in his brief filed in this Court, states that:

“The procedure followed by the district court in selecting the jury was, in our view, plainly erroneous. *545 Prospective jurors who have sat in the courtroom and heard a verdict returned against a man charged with crime in a similar case immediately prior to the trial of another indictment against him should be automatically disqualified from serving at the second trial, if the objection is raised at the outset.”

We agree that under the circumstances of this case the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s objection. Accordingly the motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Of Washington, V. Michael Lynn Wilson
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2024
Johnson v. Atencio
D. Idaho, 2022
State of Iowa v. Lee Samuel Christensen
929 N.W.2d 646 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2019)
State v. David Leon Johnson
414 P.3d 234 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2018)
Miguel Aguilar, Jr. v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2017
State v. Mark Lankford
399 P.3d 804 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2017)
State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga
864 N.W.2d 615 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2015)
United States v. Ricardo Mitchell
690 F.3d 137 (Third Circuit, 2012)
Antonio Tolbert v. Jan Trombley
424 F. App'x 419 (Sixth Circuit, 2011)
Brian Keith Moore v. Philip Parker, Warden
425 F.3d 250 (Sixth Circuit, 2005)
Brooks v. Dretke
444 F.3d 328 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
Franklin v. State
138 S.W.3d 351 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Solis v. Cockrell
342 F.3d 392 (Fifth Circuit, 2003)
People v. Yeoman
72 P.3d 1166 (California Supreme Court, 2003)
Lawrence Delisle v. Jessie Rivers, Warden
161 F.3d 370 (Sixth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Martin Iribe-Perez
129 F.3d 1167 (Tenth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Iribe-Perez
Tenth Circuit, 1997
United States v. Phillip Eugene Parmley
108 F.3d 922 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
378 U.S. 544, 84 S. Ct. 1696, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1028, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-united-states-scotus-1964.