United States v. Robert D. Poitras and William J. Duprez

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Robert D. Poitras and William J. Duprez

339 F.2d 428, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3645

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1964

Docket9488_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 339 F.2d 428 (United States v. Robert D. Poitras and William J. Duprez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Robert D. Poitras and William J. Duprez, 339 F.2d 428, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3645 (4th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In our opinion the District Court did not err in refusing to allow the accused the number of peremptory challenges permitted in a capital case, 1 the one error they assign on this appeal. While the charge was kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201 which permits punishment by death, the appellants were granted only the challenges prescribed for a non-capital felony prosecution 1 because the indictment stated that the victim was “unharmed at the time of his liberation”.

Greater precision could have been achieved by the criminal pleader by use of the statutory language, “liberated unharmed”, to avoid limiting the existence of injury to the date of liberation. Cf. Robinson v. United States, 324 U.S. 282, 65 S.Ct. 666, 89 L.Ed. 944 (1945); Smith v. United States, 360 U.S. 1, 79 S.Ct. 991, 3 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1959), including the separate opinion of Justice Clark at p. 13, 79 S.Ct. at p. 998. But we find the present allegation sufficed to guarantee the defendants immunity from the death penalty.

In addition, the Government’s bill of particulars and the oral explanation of the Court on voir dire examination unequivocally and irrevocably informed the jurors that capital punishment was neither sought nor possible in their verdict. The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

In our opinion the District Court did not err in refusing to allow the accused the number of peremptory challenges permitted in a capital case, 1 the one error they assign on this appeal. While the charge was kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201 which permits punishment by death, the appellants were granted only the challenges prescribed for a non-capital felony prosecution 1 because the indictment stated that the victim was “unharmed at the time of his liberation”.

Greater precision could have been achieved by the criminal pleader by use of the statutory language, “liberated unharmed”, to avoid limiting the existence of injury to the date of liberation. Cf. Robinson v. United States, 324 U.S. 282, 65 S.Ct. 666, 89 L.Ed. 944 (1945); Smith v. United States, 360 U.S. 1, 79 S.Ct. 991, 3 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1959), including the separate opinion of Justice Clark at p. 13, 79 S.Ct. at p. 998. But we find the present allegation sufficed to guarantee the defendants immunity from the death penalty.

In addition, the Government’s bill of particulars and the oral explanation of the Court on voir dire examination unequivocally and irrevocably informed the jurors that capital punishment was neither sought nor possible in their verdict. The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 F.2d 428, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-d-poitras-and-william-j-duprez-ca4-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack