Floyd Darbin v. George Nourse

i.

Appellant, Floyd Darbin, sued his former jailer, George Nourse, in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Darbin alleged that, while he was an inmate of the Canyon County, Idaho jail, Nourse, the County Sheriff, assaulted him, battered him and, for several months thereafter, withheld his mail and visitation rights. Following a three day jury trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of Nourse. On appeal, Darbin asserts that the voir dire examination was insufficient to allow him to exercise intelligently his jury challenges for cause and his peremptory challenges.

Prior to trial, Darbin moved for an extended voir dire. He informed the court that most of his prospective witnesses were inmates while most of Nourse’s prospective witnesses were police officers. Darbin asserted that “many people subconsciously believe that police officers are more credible witnesses than other persons are and that jail inmates should not sue jail officials.” He claimed that he would be unable to make informed decisions with regard to jury selection unless he could probe the prospective jurors’ attitudes toward police officers and their testimony and the right of inmates to sue…

concurring specially:

I concur in the entirety of Judge Reinhardt’s opinion and make the following, additional comment.

Were a juror to announce that most law officers, by reason of their profession and their oath, are trustworthy and honest but that similar respect cannot be accorded to prisoners, I should be gratified, not shocked. Those principles are consistent with responsible citizenship and are not a ground to challenge the juror for cause. Disclosure of such views, however, may be grounds for further voir dire, depending on the issues in the case and the prospective witnesses. Voir dire explores whether a juror, despite the logical force of such beliefs, will subject testimony to critical scrutiny and isolate what does not have the ring of truth, or what should appear suspect under any of the myriad tests used to determine credibility. Even jurors with preconceived notions about the outcome of the case can sit if they can render a fair and objective judgment based on the evidence. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1963).

664 F.2d 1109 72 A.L.R.Fed. 627 Floyd DARBIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George NOURSE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 79-4357. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 9, 1981. Decided Dec. 28, 1981. Stephen L. Pevar, American Civil Liberties Union, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff-appellant. John P. Howard, Boise, Idaho, argued for defendant-appellee; Robert A. Anderson, Boise, Idaho, on brief. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. Before CHOY, KENNEDY, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. I. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant, Floyd Darbin, sued his former jailer, George Nourse, in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Darbin alleged that, while he was an inmate of the Canyon County, Idaho jail, Nourse, the County Sheriff, assaulted him, battered him and, for several months thereafter, withheld his mail and visitation rights. Following a three day jury trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of Nourse. On appeal, Darbin asserts that the voir dire examination was insufficient to allow him to exercise intelligently his jury challenges for cause and his peremptory challenges. 2 Prior to trial, Darbin moved…