*1 308 the executive construc approved has Congress
dence regulations.12 tion in the embodied in the liberality increasing insists that Respondent suc- allowances statutory depletion provisions in- never Congress Acts, indicates cessive Revenue or ad- so construed 1918 should be act tended of his the return taxpayer to deprive ministered as liberality increasing But the tax-free. capital entire income the succes- calculating net to be applicable either in the acts find evidence and we can years sive deple- intent increase future in the regulations, of those inadequacy pre- redress the allowances to tion viously permitted. must be judgment follows that the
Reversed. STATES. ALDRIDGE v. UNITED Argued 20, Decided April March 1931. 1931. No. 683. 337; Hermanos, States v. Cereceda National 209 U. S. States, Lead Co. United U. S. 140. *2 Reilly James F. for petitioner.
Mr. Rover, Leo A. United States Mr. Attorney for the Dis- Columbia, of whom Burkinshaw, trict with Mr. Neil Attorney, brief, Assistant United States was on the for the United States. Hughes delivered opinion of Chief
Mr. Justice the Court. convicted, was
The petitioner Supreme Court of Columbia, District of of murder the first degree was sentenced death. The conviction was affirmed Court of Appeals. This Court writ granted a of cer- tiorari, limited raised exception on ruling of the trial court on examination voir jurors. dire of prospective petitioner negro, and the deceased was a white
man, a member of the force of the police District. record shows the on the following proceedings examina- tion jurors of the voir dire: if inquired any The court knew defendant, them Aldridge, or his counsel, any Alfred Scott the wit- names have nesses whose been called. The court further if of the inquired any prospective any knew of the if any facts the case or of them ever hav- remembered of it in or if read had newspaper, any preju- evidence, or bias circumstantial against any dice or if any conscientious scruples The court further if capital punishment. inquired against had formed or exercised any prospective opinion guilt defendant, as to the innocence and further whether inquired any prospective juror acquainted Metropolitan member of the Police with Force Columbia, particularly or more District those attached third precinct. counsel with the consent “Whereupon, in a whis- the bench and hereto approached the parties jurors, of the prospective tone, hearing out pered took following place: I understand At trial of this case Reilly. Mr. the last southerner, was one on the who was a there woman who fact defendant was that the that the said *3 influ- man somewhat perhaps the deceased a white question public, her. I don’t to ask that enced like but- “ ques- proper I think that would Court. don’t be tion, like an Irishman any more than to ask whether or a Scotchman. so brought to our attention Reilly.
“Mr. But it was It prominently. question- is racial “ It was jury. The Court. not this “ the racial Reilly. Mr. No. But it was a question, up- came “ I The Court. don’t think that proper.. I, caution, out of an Might Mr. abundance of Reilly. note exception. an “ The Court. an exception. Note requested Counsel for the defendant to allow the the question the record to show that relative to racial .be each and prejudice propounded every prospective exception heretofore with the noted behalf of the defendant.” existing practice,
In
with the
the questions
accordance
were
and the
put
questions
court had a broad discretion as to the
to be
of this'discretion,
asked. The exercise
and the restriction
request
at
inquiries
counsel,
subject
demands of
no reason
essential
We find
fairness.
inquiry
to doubt the nature of
which
the counsel
at the bar of
accused desired.
was admitted
this
Court that the
In
jury
members
were white.
ask-
relative to “racial
prejudice”
put
jurors,
is only
reasonable to assume that
referred,
matters,
counsel
not to immaterial
but
such a
would
disqualify
juror
because precluding
impartial verdict.
reference to what counsel had
trial,
heard as to the attitude of a
on the previous
disagreed,
where
indicated
purpose
was clear
question,
enough
which
appropriate
invite
If
action
the court.
the court had
permitted
ques-
tion,
qualified.
it doubtless would have been
But
properly
court, interrupting counsel,
disposed
inquiry
summarily.
any question
The court failed
ask
which
subject.
to cover the
If
could be deemed
the defendant
was entitled to have the
asked whether they had
prejudice, by
racial
the fact that
reason
de-
and the
man,
fendant was
deceased a white
giving
their
a fair
prevent
verdict, we
properly disregard
cannot
merely
court’s refusal
be-
*4
of
form in
the
which the inquiry
presented.
cause
was
inquiry
such an
propriety
generally
has been
In Pinder
27 Fla.
recognized.
State,
So. 837,
v.
370 8
the
;
the
to
sought
jurors
counsel for
accused
have the
asked on
“
you give
defendant,
dire: Could
the
who is a
their voir
you
trial
impartial
as fair and as
a
as
could a white
negro,
give
advantage
him the same
as
man,
protection
”
a
you
upon
would white man
the same evidence?
Supreme Court of Florida
that
the
held
the refusal of
question
to
the
was
and reversed
allow
error
the conv
State,
260;
In Hill v.
72
iction.1
Miss.
So.
the
case, supra,
“Though
1 In
the coürt said:
the
the Tinder
express
provided
terms
the statute
above cited”
“
446)
(McClellan’s
10, p.
yet
pertinent,
and,
Digest,
it was a
as
§
think, proper question,
fully
preju
we
to test
existence
bias or
sought
was
jurors.
elicit a fact
that
dice in the minds of the
to
fact,
too,
import
defendant;
and a
if
most vital
to
jurors
entirely
existent,
to
up
locked
within
breasts
was
Supreme
Mississippi
Court
held that
it was fatal error
negro
on trial for
permit
put
refuse to
murder
dire their voir
question:
following
negro,
as a
you got
prejudice against
negro,
Have
slighter
verdict
you
that would induce
return a
on less
against
verdict of
you
guilty
evidence than
would return a
”
man under the same
The Su-
white
circumstances?
Court
the conviction of
preme
of North Carolina reversed
a negro
of the refusal
judge
because
of the trial
to permit
juror
if
juror,
to be asked
he believed he
as a
could,
equal
justice
do
and impartial
between the State and a
McAfee,
colored man.” State See, also,
purity of trial any kind, whether result poisoned by prejudice of has been his mind *5 Here, jury. his passion, is unfit to sit on a from or he reason put in proper question to be to allow a Honor refused Suppose question had been qualifications. his order to test feelings the state his juror answered, allowed, and- the equal not show was such that he could colored race toward the prisoner, especially and the between the State justice been would have seen he character, at once charges of this jury box.” sit in the grossly unfit to
313 589; 147; 45 S. W. State v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. Fendrick v. Sanders, E. 10. 216; 103 C. 88 S. S. to racial questions as preju- of permitting and this country, section is not
dice confined sentiment fairness de- widespread attests fact inquiries Thus, be allowed. New mands that such wife, of his of a on the trial murder York, talesman, who dis- white, had testified who was was excluded the court on its own qualifying prejudice, of Appeals Court held that the motion, and the exclusion error, of a although absence challenge Decker, People party. either 157 N. talesman v. Y. also, Brown, 1018. See, N. E. State v. 188 190; 51 186, 87 W. 459, 460; S. 519. 451, Mo. examine on the voir dire as to mind, state of has disqualifying upheld
existence been other races than respect the black with other religious prejudices relation to a serious char- State, v. 384; 886; Potter 86 Tex. Cr. 216 S. 380, acter. W. Whitney, 23 Reyes, 347, 349; 5 Cal. Watson v. People v. 379; 57 Soy, 102; v. Car Cal. Horst v. People Cal. Silverman, 233, 234; 20 Wash. In People 52. Pac.
Reyes, supra, Mexicans with assault with charged murder, intent to commit and conviction was reversed be questions cause refusal to allow to determine juror a prospective whether was a member of the Know and whether Nothing party, he had taken any oath which obligation resulted inde prejudice, or whether of such an oath pendent he entertained a prejudice, prevent him from giving the fair trial.3 accused a (at 349): The court in that said p. case “As the best knows mind, satisfactory condition of his own can conclusion at, Applying then, arrived resort without himself. this test how prejudiced possible is it to ascertain whether he is not, unless questions foregoing propounded similar are him? . . . “Prejudice being a of mind more frequently state founded in passion may reason, cause; than in exist with or without and to ask *6 Ap- the Court of reference of do not overlook the
We to condi- of the trial ruling in peals, support race where the colored tions in District of Columbia the law, the that under rights all is the privileges accorded the especially are afforded the white the But courts, on the etc.” jury, serve the negro, privileges is not as the civil community and the the as the dominant sentiment as to but general any disqualifying prejudice, absence the accused. try who are to the particular bias were found fact, sharing general sentiment, If in permitting harm would be be done impartial, shown enter- but if one them was question; a fair rendering his tain a which would prejudice preclude be allow- verdict, gross injustice perpetrated would him to sit. accorded to Despite privileges said the pos- do not think that it can be negro, we justify remote as to sibility is prejudice such so this risk becomes inquiry. risk in forbidding And grave when the issue is of life death. most argument is behalf of the Government advanced it would be to the administration of detrimental (if person against party, and prejudiced whether he is or not of such prejudice answer is is affirmative), whether deny trial, party character as would lead him to a fair is, only simplest ascertaining mind, method his but the state of only fathoming feelings. probably, thoughts sure method of his obligation person If the not taken called had an which against foreigners imperil rights him in such a their in a manner law, say so, court of he could and answer would be hand, oaths, If, he had taken and was harmless. the other feelings obligations under his mind and such a influenced foreigner trial, deny grossly manner as to to a he is unfit to sit as a and such facts should be known.” suggestion of was held
4 For an illustration of a
bias
case"where
g.,
see Connors v. remote,
political affiliations,
e.
too
as to
States,
law to religious racial or prejudices. to We think that injurious would be far to permit inore it to be thought a entertaining disqualifying prejudice that persons inquiries designed allowed to serve as to disqualification the fact of were barred. No elieit surer bring justice could be devised to of processes into way disrepute.
We opinion are the trial court ruling judgment the voir dire was erroneous and the of con- must for reason viction this be reversed.
Judgment reversed. Mr. McReynolds, Justice dissenting. jurisdiction by 391,
Our over this case is limited Title § Code, S. which provides— U. “All States courts shall have power grant new trials, in cases where there has been a trial by for jury, reasons which new trials have usually been in granted certiorari, the courts of law. On the of any appeal, hearing error, writ of or motion for a new trial, case, civil or any criminal, shall give judgment the court after examina- tion entire record before the without regard errors, defects, technical do not exceptions which rights affect the substantial parties.” a petitioner, negro, killed white policeman indicted, District of Columbia. He was tried and found guilty by jury. He moved a new' trial error, ground, among That others, this court committed refusing jury examine the on their voir dire as to whether any may entertain prejudice racial matter where of homicide the defendant is a negro and a white policeman.” deceased This was overruled of death followed. sentence
Upon appeal Appeals Court of for the District error, others, the following among “The assigned: of the defendant request refusing action court’s examination of the the court’s jury during propound juror may entertain on its voir dire as to whether where the homicide racial in the matter a white policeman.” defendant is a and the deceased said— Replying this *8 error the refusal assigns defendant Counsel inquire prospective to him allow to prej- on their voir entertained racial dire whether in a is a and negro udice case wherein defendant to this man. We had consider deceased a white occasion States, 59 in the question same case Crawford further careful given D. C. 356. We have the matter App. find no reason to recede from consideration this case and jurisdiction our former In a like the District decision. all the privi- the colored race is accorded Columbia, where are afforded the white leges rights law, under the that courts, to especially we there opinion serve on the are of jury, etc., that part was no of discretion on the the trial court abuse be answered refusing question to permit jurors.” bring up judg-
This granted Court certiorari point ment of but limited review the raised affirmance by the of error. quoted assignment judge
It that while the trial appears examining dire, on their counsel for the prospective voir ac- to him: “At last trial of case I cused said this under- stand was a there was one woman on who south- and who said that the fact that the erner, defendant was a perhaps and the deceased a white man somewhat I question influenced her. like to ask that don’t pub- ” question nature that precise lic.” is unknown ” question (whatever to us. The Judge thought that was) to ask improper and refused it. Whereupon counsel “ requested exception noted the court to allow the prej- record to relative to racial show every juror, each propounded udice be behalf of the exception heretofore noted on with the defendant.” Solely judge pro- because of refusal the trial “ relative to
pound prej- an undisclosed racial udice,” be) upset we are asked to (whatever may both local courts judgment approved by judges fair conditions it is understand who, presume, than District better we do. to show the record which tends
Nothing revealed by have might entertained It is the issues. impaired ability fairly his pass considering presented not even the evidence argued that there was room doubt of guilt. reasonable does that counsel said he understood at appear (whatever that southerner, former trial a female *9 “ may mean) a negro declared fact the defendant was in- the deceased a white man somewhat perhaps and And the information fluenced her.” is the sum of gathered to be from the race respect record prejudice” might juror’s have some so distorted judgment as to prevent honest consideration. fair and juror voted;
How this unidentified woman whether she was white or whether her were black; prepossessions right wrong from materially different those en- generally by men of tertained one color of another; towards those we cannot But know. she was in- perhaps somewhat ” by fluenced the fact that the dead man defend- ant were of different color. Must we therefore decide that “perhaps” accordingly some member of the second to act fairly, failed intelligently, and without regard due to his oath!
Two local courts could not conclude there was adequate reason for holding the accused man had suffered deprivation of any right substantial through refusal by jurors something rela- to ask judge
the trial I am unable certainly And prejudice. tive to racial wrong. affirm that think, I intended Code, S.
Section 391 the U. punish- deserved from culprits prompt, escape prevent put had clear Congress this. cases like ment enactment review and limitation on courts of to its according purpose. effect should given is criminal laws the enforcement our Unhappily, violence multiply; Crimes of scandalously ineffective. not increase lamely. ought walks Courts punishment theoretical possibilities. difficulties magnifying material; with matters actual is their deal province order, not hinder it excessive theoriz- promote really what in- by magnifying of or important.
I think the below should be affirmed. judgment BANKRUPTCY, IN NEW, STRATON TRUSTEE et al. et a l. Argued Decided April20,
No. 137. March 1931. 1931.