Case ID: va_26/html/0553-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas Pollard v. The Commonwealth.
    June, 1827.
    Criminal Law — Competency of Jurors — Opinions Formed —Case at Bar, — A ¡uror, who having- heard the testimony of a witness in the canse, and then formed an opinion on it, and was doubtful whether he had •expressed the opinion or not, though he thought it most probable he had expressed it, but declared that at the time of the trial he had no prejudice against the prisoner or Ms cause, and that he could, as he believed, give the’prisoner as fair a trial as if he bad not any thing on the subject, is an impartial juror, and a challenge against him for cause ought to be overruled.
    
      
       Criminal Law — Competency of Jurors — Opinion Formed. — See on this subject, foot-note to Com. v. Hailslock, 2 Gratt. 584; foot-note to Jackson v. Com., 28 Gratt. 920; monographic note on “Juries” appended to Chahoon v. Com., 20Gratt. 788.
      The principal case is cited on the subject in Brown v. Corn., 2 Leigh 778; Jackson v. Com., 23 Gratt. 930, •933; State v. Baker, 33 W. Va. 324. 10 3. hi. Rep. 84t; foot-note to Com. v. Hughes. 5 Rand. 055 (containing an excerpt from State v. Baker, 33 W. Va. 324. 10 S. IS. Rep. 641).
    
   This was an application for a Writ of Error to a judgment of the Superior Court of Raw for the county of Cumberland, •whereby the petitioner was sentenced to •confinement in the Penitentiary-house for the term of five years, having been convicted of murder in the second degree. The application was founded on an alleged error in the Court’s refusal to sustain the prisoner’s challenge for cause of John H. Parker, a juror summoned to try him, and for putting him to his peremptory challenge. The prisoner filed a bill of exceptions, which staled that in the progress of the cause, John H. Parker was called as a juror, and upon being sworn to answer questions, said “that he heard one of the witnesses testify in the case *of the prisoner in the Called Court: that he did not know that he heard all the evidence given by that witness: that upon the evidence of the said witness, he formed an opinion at the time: that he •did not know that he expressed it, or that lie did not, but thinks it most probable that •he did express it: that he had no prejudice against the prisoner, or his cause at this time, (that is, at the time of the trial,) and that he believed he could give the prisoner as fair a trial as if he had never heard any thing on the subject, and that if ;hc was capable of giving him a fair and impartial trial before he heard any thing <of his case, he could do the like now.”

Under the above circumstances, the Court ruled and determined that the said Parker was a good juror, and that the prisoner must take him as such, or peremptorily challenge him. He did peremptorily challenge him, and excepted to the opinion of the Court.

The General Court, after conferring on the subject, decided that the said Parker was an impartial juror, and could not be challenged for cause, and overruled the application for a Writ of Error.