The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-02
EYolUME 2.

20 DC I"orn on tire jury with an intention to or
prets the traverter, WHICH is not in the leaf
fupporsed by the teflimnny. The article al
!ecees that Mr.. Baiiet wiillrti to be executed. I
!, appeal tothe teflimonv, whether lie did wifi,
or deire TO he executed. The obiervations he
made atote entirely from fcruple on his own
| mind, and net from any objection to feryinr.
lnitead of his wi!hng to be executed, the rel
fatt ~ that what he faid flowed from the pecp-
liar lituation in which he food aud he fays that
ne declared himfelf willing TO ferye, provided
IN law he was competent. The fact, therefore.
on which this article refts, is not lupcorted h,
the teftimony, and not being fiIpporte,i, might
here dGnifs this branch ofthe fu1,istt without
further anim7dvef!ion. But / canrot, conGlt.
emily with my duty, flop here, or omit proceed
ing TO ihew that the arguments of the honour
abe managers ate rs unfounded in law as Their
| facts are detitute of proof. Lctus then exam
me the law on ths cafe. TO fuitain the arti-
Gle, the hohourable managers NUT prove three
points.
l. That MIR. BafItt objected to ferviue.
2. That in point of law he ought not to have
been admitted on the jury ard
8. That his objections to ferving were over
ruled from corrupt intention on the part OF
he Respondent to opprefs and procure the con-
vief'on CT the traverfer.
II IS neceGary here 10 extniinc the ancient
doctrine Of challenges. The law of challenges
preientS ittelt TO GER view in twofold charac-
ter, the one a challenge 10 the array, which poes
to v'tiate the whole jury the other an objection
to particular juror. In this cafe there was 10
ferrous challenge made TO the array. NY oh!er-
vatIonS will therefore be directed to ti,e latter
ipecies OF challenge, that of individual Jurors.
which is made by excepting 10 an individual
when he is prefented to be fwcrn. In this cafe
no fuch expceion was made to Eli. BaG,t.
When Juror is challenged, there are two
modes OF trying whether he ftands indifferent.
One mode is by two triers confftine ofthe two
jurors firf fworn. Calendars council di,, NOE
avail themfeves of this mode.
he other mode is 70 fwear the Individual Of
fered as juror, and nterrogate him as TO his
indifference.
Here cannot avoid expecting my furprize ut
the law laid down by the honorable managers.
No part ofldw is more certain than that Juror
to be indifferent, need not have RETAINED from
having ezpreiied an opinion either npon the law
or the fact involved in the cafe he is 70 try and
that he is only rendered incapable by favor or
malice.
The great principle which the council laid
down was that Jurors fhouid be impartial but
is that the tubie1 of invehigatior in this article
what are the fats: That Judge Chaie put this
queftlon to the juror, GO have you formed and
delivered an opinion on the charges contained
in the indittmen, - Thcjuror anfwered in the
negative and was fworn. Gentlemen fay the
queitlon thould moi have been formed and deli
vered, but formed delivered and that this
was the queftion on the trial of Fries. | mean
TO thew that there is no difference between the
Two expeditions. | mean to thew that if the i'll,
'or had both formed and delivered an opinion.
his would not ircapacitate him. The oath of
riers will bring this cafe to precife point
Trials per pals l79, Salkeld Ia Rates the oath
Of trier to be, &C you fhall well and truly try,
whether (tfe JUROR chalIenged) fands inelif-
erent between the parties 70 this fTue''
But the council were not willing TO determine
he competency of a Juror by this oath and
therefore, gave the decfon to the court. They
however, that the ind 9ment ought to
AVE been read. But though on the facts the
uror may have made up his mind, the offence
omitted IN the intention, andthereforc The form
ng an opinion on the former did no. imply
Judgment on the latter. Is there man that
loes not believe that wher one perfon kills ano-
her with malice prepenie, he perpetrates mnr
Ter! Is not the intention the guilt Of the Of
ence And, yet can produce authorities IN
how that although Juror in criminal cafe
I'VE verdict on the fact and the law, this is
G1hdered as no objection to his fnrvinp 2, = IN
or in limlar cafes.
In ROLES abridgment, title trial, folio GER. i
; laid down that "if juror has fad that he will
md for one OF the parties, il is good caufe of
naienge Tor favor, II ne 10 Peak from favor
ut # he did not fpeak It ont offavor, but from
us knowledge of the matter in ifIue, il is not a
God caufe Of challenge"
In the fame folio, it is alfo laid down az la,v.
that It is no caufe of challenge to Juror. that
&c hath fiid, that he will find his verdict for ore
# the parties, ifit is not found by the l,iers or
he court, That nc fpoke from favour, and not
rom The truth oftbe fact"
In folio G55. and in trials per pals, Il IS laid
own, that if juror ha;h twenty times de-
Jared that he will find for ore ofthe parties. #
; not principal chIlIenge, becaufe fac might
ave fpokon it from his knowledge of the mat
err in ilIue, and not ont of favour or malice'
In Keelynge, folio 9, we find caufe where
Juror had formed a verdict Of guitv ae7;on :,
erfon, and another perfon was tried ON the
7me indictment for the fame offence In vyhjrf,
n Objection on that account to the Juror was
verrued.
The objection IN this cafe was overruled--
Thy Beeautc the juror food indifferent. Could
zen any aufwer Of BlfTet to the auction pro-
Guided to him evihce any degree Of partially.
T that his mind was not in fate of indiaer,
nee as to the iilue of the trial Having formed
n opinion that particular writing conRitntcd
libel, did not preclude him from forming an