How have the courts dealt with claims that the exercise of challenges based on information about jurors obtained through investigation resulted in a jury that was not impartial?

The defendants' argument that the exercise of challenges based on information about jurors obtained through investigation resulted in a jury that was not impartial is presented in the form of a rhetorical question: "* * * can it honestly be said that the government's investigation was not designed to secure a jury favorable to the government's position?" The more appropriate question is, can it be said that the jury which was sworn was prejudiced against the defendants. Cf. United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 146, 57 S.Ct. 177, 81 L.Ed. 78 (1936).

An investigation of prospective jurors pointedly directed toward uncovering possible bias against the government was made in United States v. Costello, 255 F.2d 876, 882 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,

[426 F.2d 933]

357 U.S. 937, 78 S.Ct. 1385, 2 L.Ed.2d 1551, rehearing denied, 358 U.S. 858, 79 S.Ct. 16, 3 L.Ed.2d 93 (1958). That was a case of a prosecution for income tax evasion, where an examination was made by the government of the income tax returns of many members of the jury panel "in an effort to find out whether they had income tax troubles of their own or had other reasons to be unfavorably disposed to the Government." Id. at 255 F.2d 882. We held in Costello that the investigation furnished

[426 F.2d 933]