¶1*135William T. Mason, Jr. (Robinson, Eichler, Zaleski & Mason, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellant.
¶2John K. Henebery, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty. (Justin W. Williams, U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee.
¶3Before WIDENER, ERVIN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
¶5Alec Brown is before this court a second time seeking another new trial on the criminal charges against him.1 Brown raises several issues on appeal.2 We have considered each argument and find that, with one exception, none have merit. The one exception involves the district court’s refusal at voir dire to allow a reading of the names of government witnesses. Because we find that this refusal constituted reversible error, we vacate Brown’s conviction and remand to the district court for yet another new trial.
¶6I.
¶7At voir dire in the trial below, Brown requested that the venirepersons be asked:
Do any of you know personally, by hearsay, or by reputation any of the following persons, who may testify in this case?
Phillip D. Butler, Special Agent, FBI
William Lester Norris, Sr.
William C. Jeffcoat, Detective, Naval Base Police Dept.
Erling Tonnesen, Special Agent, FBI
Richard Ihen Lu, Operator Sunshine Trading Company
Calvin W. Hilton, Naval Supply Center
Myron McKay, Naval Supply Center
Richard Prodigalidad, Naval Supply Center
Sidney Etherington, Naval Supply Center
Eugene T. Evans, Naval Supply Center
Larry McKenzie, Naval Supply Center
John Vorhees, Naval Supply Center
Charles Hegwood, Naval Supply Center
Mrs. Cozy Watson, Naval Supply Center
¶8Brown contends that the trial court’s refusal to ask such question effectively impaired his intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges and reduced his ability to assert challenges for cause.
¶9The “ ‘essential function of voir dire is to allow for the impaneling of a fair and impartial jury through questions which permit the intelligent exercise of challenges by counsel.’ ” United States v. Johnson, 584 F.2d 148, 155 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 918, 99 S.Ct. 1239, 59 L.Ed.2d 469 (1979) (quoting United States v. Anderson, 562 F.2d 394, 398 (6th Cir.1977)); see also United States v. Segal, 534 F.2d 578 (3rd Cir.1976) (citing Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 47 L.Ed.2d 258 (1976)). Although the trial court has broad discre*136tion in the conduct of voir dire, an abuse with resulting reversible error will occur where the court’s restriction hindered defendant’s opportunity to make reasonable use of his challenges. See United States v. Rucker, 557 F.2d 1046, 1049 (4th Cir.1977).3
¶10In United States v. Baldwin, 607 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir.1979), the Ninth Circuit found reversible error where a district court refused to ask the venirepersons whether they were acquainted with the prospective witnesses. The Baldwin court held that “ ‘[t]he defendant had a right to have the question answered to afford him an opportunity to exercise his ... challenges intelligently’ ”. Baldwin, 607 F.2d at 1297 (quoting Cook v. United States, 379 F.2d 966, 971 (5th Cir.1967)). Similarly, other circuits have held that determining whether any of the prospective jurors know the witnesses is clearly important to the question of the jurors’ impartiality. See United States v. Anderson, 626 F.2d 1358 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 1351, 67 L.Ed.2d 336 (1981); United States v. Jackson, 508 F.2d 1001 (7th Cir.1975); see also Cook v. United States, 379 F.2d 966 (5th Cir.1967). Indeed, this circuit previously stated that the better practice in voir dire is to permit the names of the witnesses to be read. See United States v. Brown, 767 F.2d 1078, 1084 n. 2 (4th Cir.1985) (Brown 7).4 In light of that admonishment, the circumstances of this case, and the law of other circuits, we find that the trial court abused its discretion, resulting in reversible error, when it refused to ask the prospective jurors if they knew any of the witnesses.
¶11The list of witnesses consisted of only fourteen names. Thus, very little time would have been required in asking and responding to the requested question. See Baldwin, 607 F.2d at 1297-98 (“The few minutes which would be consumed by the asking of the question, the reading of the witness lists, and the answering of the question is outweighed by the importance of the question to the ... exercise of the ... challenge____”) In addition, the facts herein necessitated that Brown obtain the desired information in order to determine whether the prospective jurors could render a fair and impartial judgment.5
¶12Nine of the fourteen witnesses were employees of the Navy. Three witnesses were law enforcement officers. At least five of the venirepersons were also naval employees and one was a law enforcement employee. This created the likelihood that the prospective jurors knew some of the witnesses. Furthermore, the jurors, having a common employment relationship with the witnesses, may have unduly given more credibility to those witnesses’ testimonies. Cf. Segal, 534 F.2d at 581. The inability to clarify these uncertainties prevented Brown from meaningfully and intelligently exercising his challenges. Accordingly, we find that the trial court erroneously limited the scope of voir dire so as to *137preclude any reasonable assurance that bias and partiality would be discovered if present. We therefore remand the case for a new trial.
¶13VACATED AND REMANDED.