United States v. Helmick

E.D. Tennessee

United States v. Helmick

510 F. Supp. 308, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16474

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee

DecidedApril 23, 1980

DocketNo. CR-2-80-5

StatusPublished

This text of 510 F. Supp. 308 (United States v. Helmick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Helmick, 510 F. Supp. 308, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16474 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

[309]*309MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

It is represented that the Carolyn King, who is named in the indictment herein as a victim of the crime charged against the defendant Mr. Helmick, is also a member of one panel of the petit jurors who are currently serving in this division of the Court, and that she will likely be a witness at the trial. The defendant moved the Court to continue the trial of this action until such time as new veniremen have been impaneled on, the ground that the foregoing situation “ * * * could possibly taint any juror who might be called in this case due to the fact that they have [sic] served with Carolyn L. King since June 20, 1979. * * * ” Factually, such a possibility could not exist.

The Court notices judicially from its records that Mrs. King has never served as a juror with any member of any of the 3 panels of veniremen who have been summoned for service at the trial of Mr. Helmick. Neither is there presently the slightest intimation that any member of these panels might not be completely fair and impartial.

The Court is not cited to, and has not located, any authority establishing the per se type of rule apparently advocated by the defendant. The essential purpose of voir dire examination is to insure the impaneling of a fair and impartial jury. United States v. Johnson, C.A. 6th (1978), 548 F.(2d) 148, 155[11,12], certiorari denied (1979), 440 U.S. 918, 99 S.Ct. 1239, 59 L.Ed.(2d) 469; United States v. Anderson, C.A. 6th (1977), 562 F.(2d) 394, 398; United States v. Blount, C.A. 6th (1973), 479 F.(2d) 650, 651.

The Court will examine on voir dire the prospective members of the jury and will permit counsel to so do, in such a manner as to insure that any jury impaneled will be fair and impartial. If, after voir dire examination, it should appear that a fair and impartial jury cannot be impaneled, then the Court will certainly not require Mr. Hemlick to be tried at that time. Before this Court will permit the defendant to stand trial, it will be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that a fair and impartial jury has been impaneled.

The motion for a continuance hereby is OVERRULED, but without prejudice to its renewal after voir dire examination has been completed.

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

[309]*309MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

It is represented that the Carolyn King, who is named in the indictment herein as a victim of the crime charged against the defendant Mr. Helmick, is also a member of one panel of the petit jurors who are currently serving in this division of the Court, and that she will likely be a witness at the trial. The defendant moved the Court to continue the trial of this action until such time as new veniremen have been impaneled on, the ground that the foregoing situation “ * * * could possibly taint any juror who might be called in this case due to the fact that they have [sic] served with Carolyn L. King since June 20, 1979. * * * ” Factually, such a possibility could not exist.

The Court notices judicially from its records that Mrs. King has never served as a juror with any member of any of the 3 panels of veniremen who have been summoned for service at the trial of Mr. Helmick. Neither is there presently the slightest intimation that any member of these panels might not be completely fair and impartial.

The Court is not cited to, and has not located, any authority establishing the per se type of rule apparently advocated by the defendant. The essential purpose of voir dire examination is to insure the impaneling of a fair and impartial jury. United States v. Johnson, C.A. 6th (1978), 548 F.(2d) 148, 155[11,12], certiorari denied (1979), 440 U.S. 918, 99 S.Ct. 1239, 59 L.Ed.(2d) 469; United States v. Anderson, C.A. 6th (1977), 562 F.(2d) 394, 398; United States v. Blount, C.A. 6th (1973), 479 F.(2d) 650, 651.

The Court will examine on voir dire the prospective members of the jury and will permit counsel to so do, in such a manner as to insure that any jury impaneled will be fair and impartial. If, after voir dire examination, it should appear that a fair and impartial jury cannot be impaneled, then the Court will certainly not require Mr. Hemlick to be tried at that time. Before this Court will permit the defendant to stand trial, it will be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that a fair and impartial jury has been impaneled.

The motion for a continuance hereby is OVERRULED, but without prejudice to its renewal after voir dire examination has been completed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 F. Supp. 308, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-helmick-tned-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack