Sawyer v. United States

Background

Two men were tried for murder in federal court. During jury selection the district attorney told certain jurors to stand aside under the State’s long-standing practice; the defendants objected and excepted. One defendant, Adams, testified in his own defense and was cross-examined about past conduct on other ships. At closing the prosecutor made an improper remark about a defendant drinking coffee, then apologized after the court intervened. The defendants asked for a new trial.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a prosecutor may conditionally set jurors aside without immediately stating a cause when the State’s practice allows it and the federal court has adopted that practice. Reviewing English common law, earlier Supreme Court and circuit decisions, and federal statutes that grant peremptory challenges, the Court concluded that the statutory grant of peremptory challenges to the Government did not abolish the older qualified or conditional right in States where that usage exists and has been adopted in federal practice. The Court said the two kinds of challenge can coexist, but a judge must supervise the process and prevent unreasonable or prejudicial use. The Court also found no harm from the cross-examination because the witness denied the allegations and no contradictory proof was offered, and it held the prosecutor’s withdrawn apology cured the improper closing remark.

Real world impact

The ruling allows federal courts sitting in States with this jury-selection custom to follow local practice while requiring judges to guard against unfairness. It confirms that defendants who choose to testify can be broadly cross-examined, and that a prompt judicial reprimand and apology can cure a fleeting improper prosecutor comment. Because the Court affirmed the convictions, the trial outcome stood.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented; the opinion records his disagreement but does not set out his reasoning in the text.