Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Robert D. Poitras and William J. Duprez, 339 F.2d 428, 4th Cir. (1964)
United States v. Robert D. Poitras and William J. Duprez, 339 F.2d 428, 4th Cir. (1964)
United States v. Robert D. Poitras and William J. Duprez, 339 F.2d 428, 4th Cir. (1964)
2d 428
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 prosecution1 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
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.
Notes:
1
Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(b)