United States v. Robert D. Poitras and William J. Duprez
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert D. POITRAS and William J. Duprez, Appellants
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
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 prosecution 1
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 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.
1
. Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(b).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.