reversing trial court’s decision to quash petit jury panel as “clearly erroneous,” because “the mere awareness that some of their fellows had such prejudice as to require that they be excused cannot realistically be said to disqualify the jurors finally selected”
How later courts described this case
- reversing trial court’s decision to quash petit jury panel as “clearly erroneous,” because “the mere awareness that some of their fellows had such prejudice as to require that they be excused cannot realistically be said to disqualify the jurors finally selected”
- trial in small Vermont town; reporting of defendant’s criminal record three months before his trial did not require overturning conviction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and CLARK, WATERMAN, MOORE, FRIENDLY, SMITH, KAUFMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
All of the active judges concurring, except Judge CLARK and Judge SMITH who vote to grant, the petition for rehearing in banc is denied.
Judges CLARK and SMITH dissent and vote for rehearing in banc so that the full bench may review the entire record in this case, particularly the effect on the possibility of a fair trial of the prosecution’s revelation to the press of the defendant’s prior criminal record.