United States v. Eric H. Jones

Jones appeals his conviction for postal robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2114 , contending that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct specific voir dire questioning on the defense of coercion. We hold such questioning was not required, and therefore affirm.

Jones and co-defendant Lanny D. Stur-gell were indicted for the robbery of the Aguangua, California, Post Office.

Defense counsel requested that the trial court ask prospective jurors during voir dire whether they were biased against the defense of coercion. The court declined to do so.

Jones’ primary defense at trial was coercion. He requested and received a jury instruction on that defense, the adequacy of which he does not challenge.

The trial court is given wide latitude to determine how best to conduct the voir dire. Rosales-Lopez v- United States, 451 U.S. 182, 189 , 101 S.Ct. 1629, 1634 , 68 L.Ed.2d 22 (1981) (plurality opinion). Failure to ask specific questions will be reversed only for abuse of this discretion. Abuse of discretion will be found, however, if the questioning is not reasonably sufficient to test the jury for bias or partiality. United States v. Baldwin, 607 F.2d 1295, 1297 (9th…