48 U.S.C. § 867
Repealed. Pub. L. 90–274, § 103(g), Mar. 27, 1968, 82 Stat. 63
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1947–1986 · leading case: United States v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957 (D.P.R. 1968).
United States v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957 (D.P.R. 1968). “” The present 48 U.S.C. § 867 provides, in pertinent part: “ * * * the qualifications required of jurors in [this] court shall be that each shall * * * have a sufficient knowledge of the English language to enable him to serve as a juror * * *.”
Armando A. Miranda v. United States, 255 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1958). “His second contention, which was timely raised in a motion to dismiss the indictment, is answered by section 44 of the Jones Act, now the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act, 48 U.S.C.A. § 867 , which provides that a juror in the district court shall “have a sufficient knowledge…”
Commonwealth v. Acen, 487 N.E.2d 189 (Mass. 1986). “1956), likewise found no exclusion of a “cohesive or representative group” under a Federal grand jury requirement, 48 U.S.C. § 867 (1982), which excluded non-English speaking persons from the grand jury list.”
Quinones v. United States, 161 F.2d 79 (1st Cir. 1947). “On the contrary the evidence therein definitely indicates that no color line is drawn in selecting federal jurors in Puerto Rico, and that although few wage earners are selected for federal jury service, the reason is that few in that class have sufficient knowledge of the…”
United States v. Ramos Colon, 415 F. Supp. 459 (D.P.R. 1976). “466 ), and through 1968, jurors in this District were covered by 48 U.S.C. § 867 , which required that to qualify, a person “have a sufficient knowledge of the English language to enable him to serve as a juror.”
United States v. Seagraves, 100 F. Supp. 424 (D. Guam 1951). “966 , 48 U.S.C.A. § 867 . 2. In the Canal Zone the judge of the District Court provided for the selection, summoning and serving of jurors from among the citizens of the United States subject to jury duty and either party could demand a jury trial, 48 U.”
Long v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 323 F. Supp. 1158 (D.P.R. 1970). “Hence, the fact that Congress has repealed 48 U.S.C. § 867 (§ 44 of the Federal Relations Act) in favor of uniform rules for jury selection throughout the federal judicial system does not affect the inviolability of the compact.”
Ballantine v. Hendricks, 351 F. Supp. 208 (D.V.I. 1972). “Indeed, the Act relied upon by the defendants explicitly repealed another section of, the Code ( 48 U.S.C. § 867 ), illustrating that Congress knows how to withdraw legislation and that further repeals by implication are not an appropriate method of statutory construction here.”
United States v. Vargas, 370 F. Supp. 908 (D.P.R. 1974). “Hence, the fact that Congress has repealed 48 U.S.C. § 867 (§ 44 of the Federal Relations Act) in favor of uniform rules for jury selection throughout the federal judicial system does not affect the inviolability.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.