Hearst

United States v. Hearst

Good Law
412 F. Supp. 873·1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16870
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 2, 1976Cr. 74-364-OJCCalifornia1,843 words

Opinion

Opinion

Carter, J.

MEMORANDUM

Trial in the above captioned matter began on January 27, 1976, when the Court commenced conducting voir dire of prospective jurors, pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 19 of the Local Rules of Practice of this District. In view of the unusually pervasive publicity that has attended this case, it was stipulated by counsel representing both the Government and the defendant that each prospective juror should be examined individually to determine the extent of his or her knowledge of the case, the source of that knowledge, and the impact such knowledge might have on his or her impartiality. The Court, believing that this method of voir dire examination under the circumstances of this case is not only wise but also required by Silverthorne v. United States, 400 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1022 , 91 S.Ct. 585 , 27 L.Ed.2d 633 (1971), accepted counsel’s stipulation.

Upon completion of general questioning of the first panel of prospective jurors, the Court announced that it would retire to the adjoining courtroom so that it could conduct individual questioning of each juror outside the presence of the other members…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.