Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Johnson, Frank, 717 F.2d 859, 3rd Cir. (1983)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Frank Johnson was convicted of kidnapping, transportation of a stolen vehicle, and conspiracy to kidnap. He appealed his conviction, raising issues regarding jury selection and the admission of his statements. The Third Circuit affirmed his conviction, finding that the trial court properly refused voir dire questions and that the absence of black jurors did not indicate prejudicial jury selection. It also determined that a prospective juror's comments did not prejudice the entire panel and that the corpus delicti was sufficiently established before admitting the defendant's statements. The Third Circuit concluded that Johnson received a fair trial.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1983-09-23 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 717 F.2d 859 Docket: 83-3109

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Frank Johnson was convicted of kidnapping, transportation of a stolen vehicle, and conspiracy to kidnap. He appealed his conviction, raising issues regarding jury selection and the admission of his statements. The Third Circuit affirmed his conviction, finding that the trial court properly refused voir dire questions and that the absence of black jurors did not indicate prejudicial jury selection. It also determined that a prospective juror's comments did not prejudice the entire panel and that the corpus delicti was sufficiently established before admitting the defendant's statements. The Third Circuit concluded that Johnson received a fair trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    United States v. Johnson, Frank, 717 F.2d 859, 3rd Cir. (1983)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Frank Johnson was convicted of kidnapping, transportation of a stolen vehicle, and conspiracy to kidnap. He appealed his conviction, raising issues regarding jury selection and the admission of his statements. The Third Circuit affirmed his conviction, finding that the trial court properly refused voir dire questions and that the absence of black jurors did not indicate prejudicial jury selection. It also determined that a prospective juror's comments did not prejudice the entire panel and that the corpus delicti was sufficiently established before admitting the defendant's statements. The Third Circuit concluded that Johnson received a fair trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    717 F.

    2d 859

    UNITED STATES of America


    v.
    JOHNSON, Frank, Appellant.
    No. 83-3109.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Third Circuit.
    Argued Aug. 5, 1983.
    Decided Sept. 23, 1983.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of
    Pennsylvania (Scranton); Sylvia H. Rambo, Judge.

    Arthur K. Dils (argued), Harrisburg, Pa., for appellant.

    Barbara L. Kosik, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), David Dart Queen, U.S. Atty.,
    Harrisburg, Pa., for appellee.

    Before GIBBONS, HUNTER, Circuit Judges, and MANSMANN,* District


    Judge.

    OPINION OF THE COURT


    PER CURIAM:
    4

    1. The defendant, Frank Johnson, was convicted along with Robert Andre Ruff
    ("Ruff") of kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1201(a), transportation of
    a stolen vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2312, and conspiracy to kidnap in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1201. The defendant and Ruff have each appealed
    their convictions. In an opinion filed this day, we affirmed Ruff's conviction.
    United States v. Ruff, 717 F.2d 855 (3d Cir. 1983).

    2. The defendant raises a number of issues on appeal. He claims that the trial
    judge improperly refused voir dire questions posed by defense counsel; that the

    absence of any blacks on the jury that convicted him indicates a patently
    prejudicial plan of jury selection; that the statements of a prospective juror
    concerning one of the main government witnesses prejudiced the entire jury
    panel; that the trial court improperly presented the defendant's admissions
    and/or confessions before sufficient corpus delicti was properly established;
    and generally, that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial.
    6

    3. Having carefully considered each of these contentions, and finding each to be


    without merit, we will affirm defendant's conviction.

    Honorable Carol Los Mansmann, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation

    You might also like