Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Marshall v. United States

360 U.S. 310

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1959-06-15
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • concluding the defendant deserved a new trial where jurors were exposed to newspaper reports of the defendant’s criminal record, which the trial court had excluded from evidence
  • noting that a trial court has great discretion in ruling on the issue of prejudice in such a case, and “[generalizations beyond that were not profitable, because each case must turn on its special facts.”
  • exercising the Court’s supervisory powers to order a new trial even where the trial court discovered the extrinsic evidence and offered a curative instruction
  • using its supervisory power to grant a new trial where jurors were exposed to news articles containing information previously ruled prejudicial and inadmissible
  • reversing a conviction because seven of twelve jurors had been exposed to news accounts of evidence that was not admitted at trial
  • reversing conviction where jury was exposed to newspaper articles containing reference to defendant’s prior convictions where trial court had refused to permit the introduction of such evidence
  • reversing conviction despite exposed jurors' promises to decide case solely on record
  • using this Court's "supervisory power to formulate and apply proper standards for enforcement of the criminal law in the federal courts" in setting aside a criminal conviction because several jurors had read inadmissible news accounts of the defendant's past activities

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Marshall v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
727 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Criminal Law & Procedure — Jury Prejudice from Pretrial Publicity A trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether prejudice resulted from jurors' reading of news articles concerning the trial, and generalized rules beyond this principle are unprofitable because each case must turn on its own special facts.
  2. Criminal Law & Procedure — Jury Prejudice from Pretrial Publicity The prejudice to a defendant is almost certainly as great when information the trial judge has ruled too prejudicial to be directly offered as evidence reaches the jury through news accounts as when it is admitted as part of the prosecution's evidence; indeed the prejudice may be greater because the information is then not tempered by protective procedures.
  3. Criminal Law & Procedure — Federal Supervisory Power A federal appellate court, in the exercise of its supervisory power to formulate and apply proper standards for enforcement of the criminal law in the federal courts, may order a new trial where jurors were exposed to newspaper accounts of information the trial judge had ruled too prejudicial to be admitted into evidence, notwithstanding the jurors' assurances that they would not be influenced and felt no prejudice.
Per Curiam.

Petitioner was convicted of unlawfully dispensing a number of dextro amphetamine sulfate tablets, a drug within the scope of 21 U. S. C. § 353 (b)(1)(B), without a prescription from a licensed physician, which resulted in misbranding and violation of 21 U. S. C. §331 (k). The Court of. Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting, 258 F. 2d 94. The case is here on a petition for-certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (1), which we granted because of doubts *311 whether exposure of some of the jurors to newspaper arti-. cles about petitioner was so prejudicial in the setting of the case as to warrant the exercise of our supervisory power to order a new trial. 358 U. S. 892.

Petitioner never took the stand; nor did he offer any evidence. A government agent testified that he was introduced to petitioner as a salesman who had difficulty staying awake on long automobile trips and that on two occasions he obtained these tablets .'from petitioner. Petitioner asked the trial judge to rule there was entrapment as a matter of law.= The judge refused so to hold and submitted the issue of entrapment with appropriate instructions to the jury. Cf. Masciale v. United States, 356 U. S. 386. The Government asked to be allowed to prove that petitioner had previously practiced medicine without a license, as tending to refute the defense of entrapment.' The trial judge refused this offer saying, “It would be just like offering evidence that he picked pockets or was a petty thief or something of that sort which would have no bearing on the issue and would tend to raise a-collateral issue and I think would be prejudicial to the defendant.” -

Yet during .the trial two newspapers containing such information got before a substantial -number of jurors. One news account said:

“Marshall has a record of two previous felony convictions.
“In 1953, while serving a forgery sentence in the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Okla., Marshall testified before a state legislative committee studying new drug laws for Oklahoma.
“At that time, he told the committee that although he had only a high school education, he practiced medicine with a $25 diploma he received through the mails. He told in detail of the ease in which he wrote and passed prescriptions for dangerous drugs.”

*312 The other news account said:

“The defendant was Howard R. (Tobey) Marshall, once identified before a committee of the Oklahoma Legislature as a man who acted as a physician and prescribed restricted drugs for Hank Williams before the country singer’s death in December, 1953.
“Marshall was arrested with his wife, Editjb Every Marshall, 56, in June, 1956. She was convicted on the drug charges in Federal District Court here in November and was sentenced to 60 days in jail.
. “Records show that Marshall once served a term in the Oklahoma penitentiary for forgery. There is no evidence he is a doctor, court attaches said.”

The trial judge on learning that these news accounts had reached the. jurors summoned them into his chamber one by one and inquired if they had seen the articles. Three had read the first of the two we have listed above and one had read both. Three others had scanned the first article and one of those had also seen the second. Each' of the seven told the trial judge that he would not be influenced by the news articles, that he could decide the case only on the evidence of record, and that he felt no .prejudice against petitioner as a result of the articles. The trial judge, stating he felt there was no prejudice to petitioner, denied the motion for mistrial.-

The trial judge has a large discretion in ruling on the issue of prejudice resulting from the reading by jurors of news articles concerning the trial. Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, 251. Generalizations beyond that statement are not profitable, because each case must turn on its special facts. We have here the exposure of jurors to information of a character, which the trial judge ruled was so prejudicial it could not be directly offered as evidence. The prejudice to the defendant is almost cer *313 tain to be as great when that evidence reaches the jury, through news accounts as when it is a part of the prosecution’s evidence. Cf. Michelson v. United States, 335 U. S. 460, 475. It may indeed be greater for it is then not tempered by protective procedures.

In the exercise of our supervisory power to formulate and apply proper standards for enforcement of the crim-,inal law-in the federal courts. (Bruno v. United States, 308 U. S. 287; McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332) we think a new trial should be granted.-

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Black dissents.