*1 v. UNITED STATES ROSALES-LOPEZ January 12, April 21, 1981 Argued 198 1 Decided 79-6624. No. *2 J., judgment announced the White, delivered Court and an opinion, Stewart, JJ., joined. and BlackmuN, Powell, RehN- J., opinion concurring filed an quist, result, J., in the in which C. Burger, joined, post, p. SteveNS, J., dissenting opinion, filed a in which JJ., joined, post, BreNNAN Marshall, p. 195. Cleary, J. by appointment 947,
John Court, U. S. argued the cause and filed for petitioner. a brief
George W. argued Jones vice for pro the cause hac him on States. With brief Solicitor were General McCree, Heymann, Assistant Solic- Attorney Deputy General Frey, itor De General and John Fue. announced Court judgment
Justice White delivered opinion, which Justice Justice Stewart, joined. and Justice Blackmun, Powell The here is whether it error for a was reversible federal trial court in reject a criminal case to the defendant’s request that the court’s voir dire of prospective jurors inquire further into the possibility of racial or ethnic against the defendant.
I February he 1979, descent. Petitioner is of Mexican Court District States in the United before a was tried alleged par- for his California District of for the Southern were aliens Mexican by which three plan in a ticipation country.1 brought into illegally following trial described evidence at Government’s aliens 10, three night of December events. On taken border and across Mexican-American were led They side. American left for them on the car, previously in- eight miles about Cal., a town Imperial Beach, drove to they morning of December Early in the side the border. they where Bowling, Virginia Hendricks the home reached *3 by petitioner. house garage into the of the were admitted liv- Caucasian, citizen, apparently was an American Bowling daughter. 19-year-old Peti- her Imperial in Beach with ing in her Bowling’s living daughter had been with tioner July house since mother’s aliens and petitioner the three morning,
Later in the hid Bowling guide green their in the trunk of a Oldsmobile. check- the the San Clemente north, through drove Oldsmobile pass- After point, petitioner grey followed in a Ford. while through Bowling ex- petitioner the and ing checkpoint, in the changed cars. proceeded Angeles Petitioner Los Bowling Imperial and Beach in the Oldsmobile returned petitioner apartment, Ford. Angeles, Los went Immigration agents of the Naturalization Service and they for had under surveillance several weeks because had suspected drop illegal Upon it was a site for aliens.
1 charged conspiracy conceal, Petitioner was with count of one harbor shield, illegally transport aliens, in and and violation of 18 U. S. C. 371§ aiding abetting illegal S. three counts of and the U. C. § transportation aliens, (a) (2) of in violation of 8 U. S. C. and 18 § concealing, harboring, shielding §2, S. and three counts of U. C. (a) (3). aliens, C. 1324 of 8 U. S. violation § the arrival, aliens were let out of go the trunk and told to into apartment by the petitioner. Shortly peti- thereafter, tioner apartment was arrested when he left with one the aliens. trial,
At INS agents, illegal Bowling, aliens, three and David Falcon-Zavala, principal another in the named arrangement smuggling who was arrested with tes- petitioner, for tified the Government. Petitioner did not testify; defense was principally credibility to challenge the Government witnesses. him of convicted all charges and the Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit af- firmed. 617 2dF. 1349 (1980).
Prior to trial, petitioner’s formally requested counsel he be allowed personally to voir dire mem- prospective jury. bers At the same he filed a list time, ques- requested tions he judge the trial ask, if court denied his Among first motion. questions submitted was one directed toward possible prejudice toward Mexicans: you
“Would consider the race Mexican descent Humberto Rosales-Lopez your evaluation of this case? you?” How would it affect
As permitted Rule of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and pursuant practice to the in the Southern Dis- California, trict of conducted voir dire *4 himself. He asked about half of questions submitted petitioner.2 Although not any question he did ask directed specifically possible racial or ethnic prejudice, he did ask a question directed to attitudes toward the charges substantive panel group questions The trial court asked the as concerning a following: knowledge trial; participants knowledge in the outside case; physical impairments that would respon interfere with their legal jurors; training; possible sibilities as disagreement principle with presumed that a criminal defendant juror to be innocent. Each asked to herself, state some basic facts including name, about himself or occupation, spouse’s occupation. alien feelings about any you have “Do any
involved: any “Do this: rephrased subsequently at all?” He problem way or the other one any feelings particular have you if juror impartial a fair and you sit as or could about aliens judge 17-18.3 The App. do upon to so?” you are called statement following general dire the voir with began the panel: im- fair and shall have
“In order that this defendant necessary it is charges against him, try partial to make panel to the questions that we certain address are no there prejudices, no that there are sure underlying impar- as fair and why you can’t sit underlying reasons Id., case.” in this at 14. juror tial if chosen do so general questioning following: He with ended his you anyone'of could any why you “Does reason occur to rea- juror, not sit in this case as fair Id., 21. at son whatsoever?” dire, request the voir defense counsel restated Following respect including the questions, with to six of the submitted argued ethnic He prejudice.4 one toward racial or directed States, Aldridge 283 U. S. sidebar that under antago- “must (1931), explore federal court all racial be against my happens nism client he of Mexican because any further descent.” declined to ask App. 25. question. responses were excused because of their to this Two questions The other five were: you employed employed illegal “Have ever or have friends that 1. have aliens?” you so, “Have ever worked for If
2. federal Government? long?” How what? you “Have ever 3. been victim of a crime?” you juror “Have ever as a in a sat civil or criminal case? What was the nature of the case and the verdict?” you speak Spanish? so, you
5. “Are able to If how well? Would willing interpreter’s to accept translation?”
187 jury of questions panel. Peremptory then were challenges exercised and the was sworn.
Petitioner appealed, unsuccessfully the refusal challenging judge possible trial question about racial or ethnic bias.5 The Court for the Appeals of Ninth Circuit noted that there is longstanding justice rule of
“[a]
criminal
the federal
courts .
..
that questions regarding possible
preju-
put
dice should be
to the
prosecutions
venire in
minor-
ity
defendants,
least where ‘special circumstances’
indicate
defendant’s race
factor
be a
in the
trial.”
The court noted that extent of the federal rule is un- “[t]he clear.” It Ibid. concluded, this case did not however, contain such “special circumstances.”
The Courts of Appeals
adopted conflicting
have
rules as to
when the failure to ask
questions
will constitute reversi-
ble error. Some Circuits
a
adopted
have
se
per
rule, requir-
ing reversal whenever the
judge
to ask
question
fails
a
on racial or ethnic prejudice requested by
defendant
who is
of minority
member
group.
Bowles,
See
States v.
that Polk, 550 v. States See United prejudice. involve Perez-Martinez, v. United States (CA10 1977); F. 2d 1265 views, diversity of light of 1975). In (CA9 F. 2d 365 525 819. 449 U. S. granted certiorari. we II the criminal in assuring function plays dire a critical
Voir impartial an right Amendment his Sixth defendant dire voir adequate be honored. Without an will jurors who to remove responsibility prospective trial judge’s instructions follow the court’s impartially to will not be able See Connors be fulfilled. cannot evidence and evaluate lack States, 408, (1895). Similarly, 158 S. 413 U. v. right to exer- the defendant’s impairs voir adequate dire rule, challenges provided where statute cise peremptory it is federal courts.6 as in the dire not of voir is adequacy its
Despite importance, func- judge’s The trial easily subject appellate review. jurors point tion at this in the trial is not unlike to im- Both must' reach later on in the trial. conclusions credibility on own by relying and their evaluations partiality See responses to questions. of demeanor evidence Ross, Rideau (1976), quoting v. 424 U. S. 595 Ristaino Louisiana, (1963) (Clark, J., v. U. S. 733 dissent- ing). easily can an court sec- appellate neither instance heard ond-guess conclusions of the decisionmaker who and observed witnesses. Alabama, In Swain (1965), connection 380 U. S. we noted the “The voir
between voir dire and the exercise of peremptory challenges: dire in American trials tends to probing, operating as a extensive Id., peremptories predicate . at 218-219. also for the exercise . . .” We requirement although noted there that there is no federal constitutional widely permitted, challenge used peremptory challenges be pursuant and is to be in federal and state courts statute or rule deemed Id., important aspect by jury. an obligation Because the to impanel jury lies the first instance with the trial judge, and because he must rely largely on perceptions, his immediate judges federal have been accorded ample discretion in how best to determining conduct the voir dire. In Aldridge States, v. United U. S. 308 (1931), recognized Court role of broad trial court: questions to prospective “[T]he were *7 put by court, and the court had to a broad discretion as questions Id., to be asked.” at 310. See also Ham v. Carolina, South 524, (1973) (recognizing U. S. “the traditionally discretion broad accorded to the in conducting voir dire .”). . . Furthermore, Rule Fed- (a), Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides eral the trial court decide to conduct voir dire may itself allow may to conduct parties it. If the court it, parties conducts may “supplement the examination such further deems proper”; alternatively, the court [the court] participation limit to the submission additional questions, only which the court must ask “as it proper.” deems are, There however, requirements constitutional re- with spect to questioning prospective jurors about racial or ethnic bias. The “special circumstances” under which the Consti- requires tution a question on prejudice racial were described Ross, in Ristaino v. supra, by the facts of that contrasting case with in those Ham v. South Carolina, in supra, we held reversible error for a state court to fail to ask such question. Ham involved a charged black drug defendant with a of- fense. His defense was law enforcement officers had “framed” him in retaliation for active, widely known, participation rights in civil activities. The critical present Ham, factor in present Ristaino, but not was that “inextricably racial issues were bound with up the conduct trial,” of the and the consequent need, under all the circum- stances, specifically to inquire possible into racial to jury. Ristaino, in order assure an supra, at criminal con- alleged involved an Ristaino Although 597. victim, white assailant and between black frontation “constitutional a need alone not create did pattern fact concerning prejudice. racial dimensions” presump- constitutional There no at S., 424 U. any particular members against for or juror bias tion there is demonstrates, As Ristaino or ethnic groups. racial requiring in such circumstances constitutional rule no se per Id., Only when 596, n. 8. prejudice. to racial inquiry as likelihood of indications more substantial there are particular affecting or ethnic request of a court’s denial defendant’s does the trial case ability with sub- impartially jurors’ deal examine of discretion. to an unconstitutional ject amount abuse leaves it circumstances, the Constitution Absent such judicial system within which that court, the trial for questions. the need operates, court determine that under our system, court we have indicated federal re- *8 the we would supervisory authority courts, over federal prej- of questions discovery directed to the racial quire that circumstances in which in- udice asked certain in such an be Ristaino, not at quiry constitutionally supra, is mandated. 597, n. 9. of an nonconstitutional stand appropriate
Determination depend upon comparison the not ard for federal courts does likely application of the concrete costs benefits that its is delay to likely to entail. These are some in slight: unqualified versus the of an discovery juror occasional who would not There is, however, otherwise be discovered. significant a more conflict at involving issue here —one justice in appearance the federal courts. the one On hand, requiring inquiry every likely in case is to create impression justice upon “that in law a court of turn pigmentation skin the accident of birth.” Ris [or] taino, supra, judges at n. 8. understandably Trial are to suggestion hesitant introduce such a into their courtrooms. Ristaino, Bal- supra, at 591. at Aldridge, supra, See per- criminal defendant’s this, however, is the against anced not eliminate avoiding inquiry does ception that ele- place trial is not the problem, and that his reality. appearance vate over Aldridge, supra, and first
We confronted this conflict today: what we said there remains true behalf of the Govern- argument “The advanced on administration ment that it would be detrimental to allow States of the law in the courts of the United jurors religious prejudices. to racial or questions to as injurious to permit think that be far more We would thought persons entertaining disqualifying it to be that in- prejudice were allowed to serve were designed disqualification the fact of quiries elicit bring proc- way No could be devised to barred. surer 314^315. disrepute.” S., into 283 U. at justice esses of the defendant usually In our it is best allow judgment, making the determination by to resolve this conflict into racial not he to have the prefer whether or request, honor pursued.7 or Failure to prejudice ethnic circumstances where the however, only will be reversible error possibility there is a reasonable case indicate that jury. might have influenced racial ethnic circum- Ristaino, In that under the indicated Court have been re- case, trial court would stances of that a federal designed to iden- “propound appropriate questions quired tify if the defendant.” requested Ristaino, made clear n. 9. the Court also S., U. Aldridge, based on this Court’s the result reached in *9 request course, defendant’s where judge need not defer to a Of prejudice. courts possibility racial But since the there is no rational reality trial, appearance and of a fair if the seeking assure the are meaningful a ethnic difference between himself and the defendant claims victim, his voir dire request ordinarily be satisfied. should S., courts. 424 supervisory power over federal U. Aldridge, Court held n. Ristaino embraced, for trial court fail that was reversible error a federal black de- prejudice involving into racial in a a inquire case policeman. The cir- murdering fendant accused of a white cumstances of both indicated there “reason- cases jury. able possibility” that racial would influence Aldridge together, fairly imply Ristaino federal by trial courts must make when requested such defendant accused of a crime and where the defend- violent ant and the victim different or ethnic are members of racial groups. supervisory upon rule is consistent This based with possibility the “reasonable standard” articulated above. It unfortunate fact remains an in our that violent society perpetrated against crimes or members of other ethnic groups often raise such possibility. There other suggest circumstances that inquiry, need for such an but the decision as to whether the suggest total circumstances possibility reasonable that racial ethnic will af- fect the jury primarily subject remains with the court, case-by-case appellate review courts.
Ill against standards, Evaluated these there was no reversible error in voir dire petitioner. afforded At point no has petitioner argued that the matters at issue in his trial in- allegations volved of racial or prejudice: ethnic neither the Government’s case nor his defense allega- involved tions. were, There no “special then, circumstances” of con- stitutional dimension in this case. Neither the circum- did stances of the case reveal a violent criminal act with a victim of a different group. racial or ethnic In fact, petitioner was accused of a victimless aiding crime: of his members own group gain ethnic illegal entry into the United States. Petitioner, falls within therefore, of cases category which the trial court must if determine the external circum- *10 that racial possibility of the case indicate a reasonable
stances jury’s evaluation ethnic will influence or reasons, believe that such For two we do not evidence. case. in this been demonstrated possibility reasonable has reasonably juror’s that a the trial court determined First, ability to or her serve might toward aliens affect his court, therefore, questioned The impartially this case. aliens. to their attitudes toward prospective jurors have understood jurors There can be no doubt that the would aliens. about aliens to at include Mexican question least cause, for based on their jurors The trial court excused two jurors elimi- responses question. Removing to this these remain- nated, believe, any possibility we reasonable that the ing jurors by prej- would influenced an undisclosed racial by udice toward been have disclosed Mexicans would questioning.8 further
Second, petitioner “any antago- contends that latent racial likely jurors nism” toward Mexicans was be exacer- by relationship Bowling’s testimony bated concerning petitioner however, daughter. Petitioner, between and her argument support failed to make to the trial court in this requested question. had, however, Even if he would possibility jury’s not create a reasonable determina- by prejudice. tion would be influenced tes- Bowling’s timony as to role in petitioner’s particular smuggling operation substantially in this trial was involved corroborated by presented the other includ- Government, witnesses ing illegal Falcon-Zavala the three aliens. Under case, circumstances of be- the racial ethnic differences generally also note that the trial court We asked whether there were any grounds might why they occur to the as to could not sit impartial” jurors. question Coupled concerning as “fair and with the aliens, juror there is little reason to believe who did not answer this question general have affirmatively answered directed narrowly prejudice. at racial key not witnesss did
tween the defendant and a Government a situation the standard set out above. meeting create *11 inquire further than he not, therefore, required to did. circumstances,
Under these we cannot hold that there was possibility a reasonable or ethnic prejudice that racial jury. affect the Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in petitioner’s judgment and the request, denying of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
So ordered. Justice with whom The joins, Chief Justice Rehnquist, concurring in the result. agree
I resqlt with by plurality today reached with most of I reasoning. its cannot, embrace the however, language contained in paragraph the last II of Part may opinion which perceived be per se rule creating a requiring reversal of criminal involving conviction “violent crime” between members of different racial or ethnic if groups the district court to refused voir dire on the issue of racial I prejudice. do disagree not in toto para- with that graph, but fear that its use of the term crime” “violent .and the term “different or ethnic groups” apt spawn is litigation new over the meaning these terms and whether the trial court properly assessed the possibility of racial ethnic prejudice infecting the selection of jury. It undoubtedly true may occur in the case of a defendant accused of a violent crime where the defend- ant and victim are members of different racial or ethnic groups, undoubtedly is also true that there are cir- cumstances other than these which may suggest to the trial judge the need for an inquiry into possibility of prej- udice. But knowing the profession, contentiousness of our the suggestion precise that a definition of “violent crime” or “different racial or ethnic groups” will ever be arrived at unwilling lay me rule which seems
leaves down flat proposed paragraph to be in the last of Part I would II. think that in the case of the defend- “violent crimes” where ant and victims are members of "different racial or ethnic groups,” the decision as on voir as to racial dire or ethnic prejudice primarily “remains with the trial court, subject case-by-case appellate review courts.” See ante, my at 192. view, inappropriate it is for us to decide always there is possibility” “reasonable solely because crime is I “violent.” would also not rule out possibility of a finding of harmless error, but well embraced footnote 7 to plurality’s opinion. my
As can be seen, with not plurality differences are great, but we are on many appeals beseeched so reverse *12 judgment for procedural fairly reasons which cannot have been said to I play part a process the that factfinding would leave somewhat more to the trial court’s discretion than does the the plurality, decision to whether or not questions on such as racial or ethnic prejudice should be asked on voir cannot, dire. We things, always lay the nature of try down “bright rules, line” but defini- we should to avoid clarify litigation. tions that do not define or and hence invite It seems to me quite conceivable compe- that a thoroughly tent and fairminded district court judge could conclude that of such asking or the questions, devotion a substantial of time to the inquiry, amount could well exacerbate what- prejudice might ever substantially aiding exist without in ex- posing it. Stevens,
Justice with whom Brennan Justice Jus- tice Marshall join, dissenting. question
The in this case is in the conduct of whether, voir dire of prospective pros- examination in criminal ecutions in the federal re- judge upon courts, must, trial quest, question ask at one concerning possible prejudice least minority belongs. against group to which the defendant provides Settled law simple question.1 answer to this plurality’s new answer to that contains two parts: holds that “federal trial courts must make such an inquiry requested when violent by a defendant accused crime and where the defendant members victim are Ante, of different or ethnic groups.” racial at 192. Because “special no present circumstances” are in this case, Ante, plurality judgment affirms Appeals. of the Court of at 192-194. Heretofore, federal law has that a required by or prejudice inquiry ethnic be made requested when defendant, regardless presence special or absence indicating possibility circumstances is there a reasonable will jury. influence the because case, general quéstions asked were learned I inadequate, respectfully dissent.
An impartial
indispensable
tribunal
is'an
element of a fair
Murchison,
criminal
trial. See In re
ethnic for no the groups group reason other than as a “special whole.3 Even when there are no circumstances” indicating connected with an criminal transaction an alleged unusual of racial or member of the group risk other a bias, on Party Nazi not allowed to sit in a judgment should be Jewish defendant. Aldridge States,
In 308, in 283 U. 1931, v. United S. problem protecting Court addressed criminal defend- ants in possibility the federal courts from the of racial or among jurors. ethnic not prospective bias That case was argued long or in decided a vacuum. it followed a Rather, requiring prospective jurors line state-court decisions Aldridge it- questioned potential be about prejudices. such special that the crime at issue self involved circumstances that the black and the victim defendant was murder, in Chief police officer, reasoning was a white but neither the reasoning nor the in Hughes’ opinion for the Justice Court, quoted length, from which at opinions he state-court The character special relied on circumstances. such quotation of both Aldridge holding explained by is best leading cases discussing footnotes appended text and the South Texas, North Florida, Carolina, from Mississippi, Carolina: has been generally propriety
“The State, Pinder So. Fla. recognized. pervasive influence in not be a The fact that such society community in from is drawn even particular which any As Justice serious. Chief large make this concern less does not States, Aldridge U. S. 314: Hughes v. United explained the com- the dominant sentiment of is not ... as to “But any disqualifying prejudice, as to munity general but and the absence of fact, try are accused. If in particular jurors who bias of the impartial, they be no harm sharing sentiment, were found to general question; if them was permitting the but one of be would done rendering fair preclude would to entertain shown allowing perpetrated in verdict, injustice him to sit.” gross *14 198 jurors
the for the accused have the sought counsel you give defendant, asked on dire: 'Could their voir impartial you who is a as fair and a trial as negro, as could and him give advantage a white the same man, protection you and man upon as would a white same Supreme evidence?' of Florida The Court held that the refusal of the court to allow was error question and State, reversed the In Hill 112 conviction.1 v. Miss. 260; Supreme So. Mississippi Court held permit it error to negro was fatal refuse to a on to put jurors trial for murder to prospective on their voir following dire the question: you got any 'Have prejudice against the negro, negro, as a in- would you duce slighter to return a verdict on less evidence you than return verdict against a white guilty man under the same Supreme circumstances?' The Court of North Carolina reversed the conviction of a negro because of the refusal of the trial permit juror to be if could, asked 'he he believed as a juror, do equal justice and between State and a colored man.’ State v. N. McAfee, 64 C. 339.2 See, State, also, Fendrick v. 39 Tex. 147; 589; S. Cr. W. State Sanders, E. S. C. S. case,
“1 In supra, the Finder ‘Though question the court said: express is not provided terms for in the statute above cited’ (McClellan’s Digest, 10, p. 446) ‘yet pertinent, and, § think, we proper question, fully to test the existence of bias or prejudice in jurors. sought minds It tó elicit a fact that import was of the defendant; most vital fact, too, to the and a existent, if up entirely was locked within the breasts of the to whom the was propounded; knowledge of the existence acquired only of which could interrogating juror himself. answer to it if in affirmative could have worked no harm juror anyone to the else, or to but would have done credit to the humanity intelligence juror, satisfactorily and would have exhibited to the court defendant his entire competency, *15 But, far the
so
element of bias or
was
if the
involved.
then,
negative,
answer to it from the
in
wo-bave
had been
hesitancy
wholly
saying
no
in
that
be
it would have shown them to
incompetent
upon
negro
unfit and
man
to sit
the trial of a
fully
race,
right
jury
impartial
whose
to a trial
a fair and
is as
guaranteed
laws,
him under our constitution and
as to the
to
incompeteney
man in
And
itself
whitest
Christendom.
such
asserts
superadded
in
with
force
case as this where the life or death
jury’s
tip
of the defendant was the issue to
the scale in the
hands for
adjustment.’
"2
(at p. 340):
ease,
In that
the court said
‘It is essential to
purity
by jury,
every juror
of trial
shall be free from bias.
poisoned by
any
kind,
If
mind has been
whether
his
jury. Here,
resulting
passion,
is unfit
sit on a
from reason or
he
question
proper
put
to the
his Honor refused to allow a
to be
qualifications.
had
juror,
Suppose
his
in order
test
allowed,
juror
answered, that
the state
been
and the
had
not show
feelings
the colored race was such that he could
toward
prisoner,
equal
justice
and the
and
between
State
character,
seen
he
charges of
it is at once
especially in
”
box.’
grossly
been
to sit
would have
unfit
1, 2.
311-313,
and nn.
283 U. S.,
be construed as
opinion might
risk
To
avoid
of the black
members
only
prejudice against
applicable
following paragraph:
added the
Hughes
Chief Justice
race,
right
voir
as to the
jurors on the
“The
to examine
dire
up-
has been
mind,
state of
disqualifying
existence-of a
race,
black
and
to other raGes
respect
with
than
held
prejudices
other
of a serious
religious
.to
and
in relation
State,
380,
86 Tex. Cr.
Potter v.
384;
character.
v.
Reyes,
v.
Watson
People
S.
Cal.
886;W.
Soy, 57
People v. Car
Cal.
Whitney,
375, 379;
23 Cal.
Silverman,
;234
“3 (at 349): juror p. in that ‘Asthe best knows court case said satisfactory can mind, of his condition own no conclusion at, then, Applying this test how arrived without resort himself. possible not, unless prejudiced is it to ascertain whether he is *16 questions foregoing him? . . propounded similar to the are to . “ ‘Prejudice being frequently in of mind founded a state more cause; and to passion reason, in exist with or without than against party, person prejudiced or and ask a whether he is not a (if affirmative), prejudice is of such a the answer is whether that deny party trial, is not to a fair character as would lead him mind, is, only ascertaining of but simplest method the state of only thoughts and fathoming his feel- probably, the sure method of obligation ings. person If had not taken an which would called foreigners imperil manner to against in such a as prejudice him say rights law, so, and the and in a court he could their of If, upon hand, he had taken be harmless. other answer would and obligations his mind feel- oaths, and under which influenced trial, deny foreigner to a ings in such a manner as to ” juror, and such facts should be known.’ grossly unfit to sit as a he is 313-314, n. 3. 283 U. atS., Aldridge opinion, Chief Jus- the end of toward Then, holding was clear that the Court’s Hughes made it again tice arising spe- from to not risk racial limited of a case: particular cial circumstances of the Govern- on behalf is advanced argument “The detrimental to the administration that would be ment it allow to States in the courts of United law religious prejudices. as questions permit injurious it be far more think that We entertaining disqualify- persons thought it to be jurors and to serve as prejudice were allowed ing
201
designed
inquiries
disqualification
elicit
the fact of
way
were barred. No surer
could
bring
be devised to
processes
justice
Id.,
into disrepute.”
at 314-315.
light
Hughes’
of Chief Justice
sur
reasoning,
not
prising that
majority of Federal Circuit
overwhelming
who
Judges
have confronted the question presented
in
have interpreted Aldridge
case
establishing
firm
en
rule
minority
titling
defendant
some
prospective
jurors on voir dire
possible
about
racial or
ethnic
to the specific
unrelated
facts of the case.4 I so
Al-
read
dridge
1973,5
I think the message
of the case is equally
clear
1981.6 The state-court decisions on which Chief Jus
4
States,
King
See Frasier
United
62,
(CA1
v.
2d
1959);
267 F.
66
v.
States,
United
124
App.
138,
U.
139,
968,
(1966);
S.
D.
362
C.
F. 2d
969
Gore,
United States v.
(CA4
United
1110,
435 F. 2d
1970);
1111-1113
Carter,
States
1132,
v.
(CA6
440
2d
United States
1971);
F.
1134-1135
Bamberger,
(CA3
1119,
nom.
1972),
v.
456 F. 2d
cert. denied sub
Crapps
States,
Robinson,
United
v.
United
406 U. S.
States
v.
Booker,
780,
(CA7 1972);
United
F. 2d
781-782
v.
States
2dF.
Powers,
(CA7 1973);
States
(CA8
1310-1311
2dF.
*17
denied,
United
1973),
923;
Robinson,
States v.
cert.
415 U. S.
2dF.
485
(CA3
Johnson,
United
1157,
1973);
States v.
1158-1160
1104,
527
2dF.
(CA4 1975);
v. Bell,
United States
1106-1107
1040,
573 F. 2d
1042-1043
Bowles,
(CA8 1978);
United States v.
970,
(CA8 1978) ;
574 F. 2d
971-973
Williams,
United States v.
1979),
612
2d 735,
(CA3
F.
cert.
736-737
Taylor Supply Co.,
denied,
Kuzniak v.
702,
In this with the view special circum- adequate any dire was to determine whether juror might give prejudice. stances rise to related to the of aliens inquire prejudice smuggling did about possibility and I California, agree into relationship from the between the defendant and resulting daughter a matter the trial Bowling’s witness judge could best evaluate. the voir dire was in- However, adequate wholly ignored as a of law matter because potential risk that in the Southern District of Califor- might prejudiced against simply nia because defendant person he is a of Mexican descent. Because the defendant’s lawyer perceived a risk of such irrational in that Aldridge supervisory power, was based on the not on Federal Con- S., Williams, supra; stitution. 424 U. n. 10. See United States v. Bowles, supra. United States v. Circuit, Gore, supra, The Fourth in United States v. examined the Aldridge state-court decisions cited in found some involved crimes 2d, with no racial overtones whatsoever. See 435 F. at 1111-1112. Chief Hughes’ Aldridge Justice discussion of these decisions indicates that that case established “a broad rule that criminal case an accused has a *18 inquire right prejudice precludes whether racial any juror reaching from 2d, a fair verdict.” King F. at 1111. See also v. supra, States, 2d, United at 362 F. at 969. District, request a specific question concerning for it should granted.8 have been
I respectfully dissent. is, course, It judge’s duty give clear the trial an in dependent struction was not phrasing particular questions on the submitted defense Aldridge, S., counsel. See 283 U. at It is equally that, although clear judges trial broad have discretion to form questions, question ulate voir dire general whether there was “why you reason impartial juror,” could not sit in this case as a fair and ante, adequate see at inquiry; if it specific not an for a substitute were, judges might simply be well advised to ask nothing See, Carter, supra, 1134-1135; g., else. United States e. Robinson, supra, States v. at 782.