United States v. Henry S. Branscome, United States of Am. v. Perry L. Carlton, Jr., 682 F.2d 484 (4th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Henry S. Branscome, United States of Am. v. Perry L. Carlton, Jr., 682 F.2d 484 (4th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Clay (almd, 2001-09-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#1 28 U.S.C. § 1861-76 cited 1× in this case · 2 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Clay (2×)
M.D. Ala. · 2001 · confidence medium
Surely a district would be in substantial violation of the statute [JSSA] if it selected all its jurors by randomly drawing names from the qualified wheel and allowing those selected to opt in or out at will.” Id.; 28 see also United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982) (holding that use of volunteer jurors introduced an impermissible subjective element into jury selection).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gattis v. State
Del. · 1994 · confidence medium
Kennedy, 548 F.2d at 610-12 ; United States v. Branscome, 4th Cir., 682 F.2d 484, 485 (1982) (grand jury).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
N.D. Cal. · 1993 · confidence medium
In United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982), the court held that selection of volunteers to serve on a grand jury from a pool of prospective jurors who had been randomly selected violated the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861-76 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Felix Resto
2d Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
The cases cited by Resto, United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982), and United States v. Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608, 610-12 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 865 , 98 S.Ct. 199 , 54 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), are inapposite as they both involved jurors who volunteered for service — thus destroying randomness.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Clarence Christian Nelson
9th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608, 610-12 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 865 , 98 S.Ct. 199 , 54 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); accord, United States v. Layton, 519 F.Supp. 946, 952, 955-56 (N.D.Cal.1981).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Awadallah
S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608, 610-12 (5th Cir.1977).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Joseph Spriggs, III
D.C. Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608, 611 (5th Cir.1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Carmichael
M.D. Ala. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Surely a district would be in substantial violation of the statute [JSSA] if it selected all its jurors by randomly drawing names from the qualified wheel and allowing those selected to opt in or out at will.” Kennedy, 548 F.2d at 612 ; see also United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982) (holding that use of volunteer jurors introduced an impermissible subjective element into jury selection).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dewey E. Coleman v. Jack McCormick Warden, Montana State Prison, and Michael T. Greely, Attorney General for the State of Montana (2×)
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The sole criterion he employed was ability to serve longer; the panel from which the jury was drawn was distinguished only by that quality." Id. (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982) (grand jury); United States v. Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608, 611 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 554 F.2d 476 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 865 , 98 S.Ct. 199 , 54 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). 20 Coleman did not present any affidavit or other evidence to suggest jurors were dismissed for any reason other than unavailability.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dewey E. Coleman v. Henry Risley, Warden, Montana State Prison, and Michael T. Greely, Attorney General for the State of Montana (2×)
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The sole criterion he employed was ability to serve longer; the panel from which the jury was drawn was distinguished only by that quality." Id.; see also United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608, 611 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 554 F.2d 476 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 865 , 98 S.Ct. 199 , 54 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). 64 Coleman did not present any affidavit or other evidence to suggest jurors were dismissed for any reason other than unavailability.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Melvin Meredith, A/K/A Monk, United States of America v. Gregory Parker, United States of America v. Nathaniel Hicks, Jr., A/K/A Bubbles, United States of America v. Rubin Parker, A/K/A Eddie Bo, United States of America v. Charles Audie Frisby, United States of America v. Avon Dockins, United States of America v. Steve Garland
4th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982) (substantial noncompliance existed when clerk asked for volunteer grand jurors); United States v. Okiyama, 521 F.2d 601, 603-04 (9th Cir.1975) (inclusion of non-English-speaking jurors violated specific provisions of the Act).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Meredith
4th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982) (substantial noncompliance existed when clerk asked for volunteer grand jurors); United States v. Okiyama, 521 F.2d 601, 603-04 (9th Cir.1975) (inclusion of non-English-speaking jurors violated specific provisions of the Act).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Randy K. Gometz (2×)
7th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir.1982) (per curiam); cf. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Rosado, 699 F.2d 121, 124 (3d Cir.1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
Henry S. BRANSCOME, Appellee; UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Perry L. CARLTON, Jr., Appellee
82-5006, 82-5007.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 30, 1982.
682 F.2d 484
William G. Otis, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va. (Elsie L. Munsell, U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., Raymond A. Carpenter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant., William J. Murphy, Washington, D. C. (Vincent J. Fuller, Barry S. Simon, Williams & Connolly, Washington, D. C., Anthony F. Troy, Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore, Milton P. Miller, Elizabeth A. Flournoy, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Hayns-Worth, Per Curiam, Russell, Winter.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The district court dismissed two indictments because the grand jury which re[*485] turned them was organized in violation of the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1861-76. The violation consisted of asking for volunteers to serve on the grand jury from the pool of prospective jurors who had been randomly selected. Each prospective juror who volunteered was permitted to serve, [1] and the full complement of the grand jury was thereafter filled by random selection. In each case, the government appeals, and we affirm.

The district court assigned three reasons for its ruling, any one of which would support the result. [2] First, the district court ruled that the practice of selecting volunteers diminishes the likelihood that a fair cross section of the community will be represented on a given grand jury. We do not accept the validity of this reason on the record before us. It represents a finding of fact, and there was no evidence that volunteer grand jurors represented or were likely to represent a disproportionate number of the identifiable segments of the community. It is, however, unnecessary to remand the case for the taking of evidence on this issue because we are in agreement with the district court that (1) selection of volunteers introduces a subjective criterion for grand jury service not authorized by the Act, and (2) the selection of volunteers results in a non-random selection process in violation of the Congressional intent that random selection be preserved throughout the entire selection process.

Except as noted, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons assigned by it. United States v. Branscome, 529 F.Supp. 556 (E.D.Va.1982).

AFFIRMED.

1

. There were at least five volunteer grand jurors and possibly six.

2

. The reasons were articulated in No. 82-5006. In No. 82-5007, the district court, presided over by a different district judge, followed and relied on the opinion in No. 82-5006.