Morford v. United States

339 U.S. 258, 70 S. Ct. 586, 94 L. Ed. 2d 815, 94 L. Ed. 815, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2128
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 10, 1950
Docket236
StatusPublished
Cited by77 cases

This text of 339 U.S. 258 (Morford 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
Morford v. United States, 339 U.S. 258, 70 S. Ct. 586, 94 L. Ed. 2d 815, 94 L. Ed. 815, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2128 (1950).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

In this case the trial court did not permit counsel for petitioner to interrogate prospective government employee jurors upon voir dire examination with specific reference to the possible influence of the “Loyalty Order,” Executive Order No. 9835, on their ability to render a just and impartial verdict. Such questioning was permitted in Dennis v. United States, ante, p. 162; see n. 4 of the Court’s opinion, ante, pp. 170-171.

We said in Dennis that “Preservation of the opportunity to prove actual bias is a guarantee of a defendant’s right to an impartial jury.” Ante, pp. 171-172. Since that opportunity was denied in this case, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Frankfurter concur in the reversal for the reasons expressed in their opinions in Dennis v. United States, ante, p. 162.

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

Related

Townsend 257689 v. Morrison
W.D. Michigan, 2025
Taylor 408375 v. Huss
W.D. Michigan, 2024
Nassiri v. Mackie
W.D. Michigan, 2023
Love v. Texas
Supreme Court, 2022
Ezell 73933 v. Skipper
W.D. Michigan, 2021
United States v. Master Sergeant TIMOTHY B. HENNIS
75 M.J. 796 (Army Court of Criminal Appeals, 2016)
State v. Azad Haji Abdullah
348 P.3d 1 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2015)
State v. Madkins
219 P.3d 831 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2009)
United States v. Littlejohn, Andrew
489 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Circuit, 2007)
State v. Thomas
798 A.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2002)
Thomas v. State
775 A.2d 406 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Dingle v. State
759 A.2d 819 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2000)
Davis v. State
767 So. 2d 986 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2000)
State v. Clark
981 S.W.2d 143 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1998)
Raby v. State
970 S.W.2d 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1998)
David L. Davis v. State of Mississippi
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1997
Hammon v. State
1995 OK CR 33 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1995)
Jones v. State
1995 OK CR 34 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
339 U.S. 258, 70 S. Ct. 586, 94 L. Ed. 2d 815, 94 L. Ed. 815, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morford-v-united-states-scotus-1950.