Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-08-15

i
upshaw answered that he had prcjudices
| against his political character on account
| ot his conduct IN the Presidential election
or 1901 but not in other respects.
a debate then took place ON question
! which affected the cases Of many OF the We
nire men; whether person whohad formed
q expressed an opinion rs to the intention of
Col. burr to commit treason, but who had
neither formed nor expressed nm opinion as
70 the oVert dct o. treason, was GisGuali-
! fed or not
The argument on this question was We
| ry interesting, and we are sorry it is cut of
our power to present it TO our readers at
| full lergth.
On the part Of Col. Burr it was conten-
| ded that jurors ought to DC impartial, and
free from all exception; Gin support of
which Reevcs's history Of the English law,
Up 500. 81. do. 446, and Carey's English
| Liberties p. 2l5, 24S ard 249, were cited
lby Mr. Matio), 2 McNAlly, 667, was also
cited, 20 shew HAT the court viii even post
pciic the trial Of criminal case where the
| public mind h''d been trejudicEd by pubii-
cations against the accused; upon his ma
lliog affidavit that those puslicatiors we're
net AZ his instance. Il was urged thai a iu-
ry man, WHO had made up his mintl as to
the prisoners intention to'Commit treason,
had decided haLf'thc ease /; Cthe grhois con-
sis,ing Of the iHtcHfion and of tho Gct cor
respondent thereto y that the essence Of
the crime OF treason depended upon the in
ltention; Since acts Nigh, be altogether IN
different, which, (beiDg coupled with trea-
s ntblc Intentions would be reasonable
that therefore those ycnire-men who be-
l.cved the reasonable design 10 have been
formed were hdif ready to find the pr soncr
guilty, and would require powerful evidence
TO doaway their impressions against him.
On the part Of the United States it was
argued that the impartiality of a jury
winch the law required, did not consist in
their being altogether free from any i'm
ipressions relative tie the Sutjecf that this
was indeed desirable, if it were possible (;
but was, IN fact Gn this case) totally inn
pracu cable; that it was sufficient for the
, jury to be impartial as it respected the ter
son OF the accused /; that is to say, TO he free
rom all malice or i'll will ag, inst the midi
, vidull That op Mons as 20 the sufj CT man =
of the prosecution ought not 60 disauahiy a
, Juror, when those opinions appeared to bv
formed from such information as he had
+ received < not from any prejudice or dislike
) to thG person accused---that the authori-
> ties cited on the other side were from ele
mentay writers, who laid down genera
:. principles, which could not apply in al
: cases in practice, but must be modified by
p necessity. For example, it was urged We.
Il ny eioquently by Mr.. Writ, that, in the tri.
! ais ot those who were concerned in the re-
v helions of 1715 and l7<5 in England, the
=. lurIes were necessarily composed of per
:, sons who had formed their opinions con
9 corning that rebellion, who knew that i
Il had existed aud even believed that tn,
4 individuals accused were guilty. He men
- toned also the trials of Hardy, Tooke ant
- Ihelwail IN England, and The famous tri
~ ais for conspiracy and rebellion in Ireland
?. and asked, if it was possible that no opini
ems relative TO the subject III controvcrs
could have been termed by the iuries il
those cases---Iie Contended that the prc
sent case was similar one that it hat
been the universal subject OF conversation
anu that no man "who had the soul of ;
man" could avoid taking up impression
concerning 1t. He cited passage from Haw
kns 10 shew that If venire-man has d.
I'd csared the prisoner lily, and that he oueh
IT to DC hanged, yet, if he said so from hi
Own 6no7ofcdgc, it is not good cause O
IN challenge. Ii may be said, he observed
&c that where juror has formed his opinion
W IRON the whole evidence he is good Juror
otherwise not but, surely, where he ha
el formed it rrom the whole evidence. hi
y prejudice is still greater Since in such cas-
le his mind IS locked against the possibilt,
~ OF Change. But here the vcnirc-mcn haC
j. mot made up their minds completely thei,
- opinions were not fixed and therefor,
I'd they were better qualified 10 be Jurors
p nc observed too, that the impressions 0
l. hn Bassctt, who was accepted as goo,
jury man in Callendcr's case, were nucl
IL stronger against the prisoner than thos,
n cit by anyof the vcnre-men now i'm ouestj
as on; for he bad read the book called tn,
u Prospect Before Us, and declared his obi
Il Mon that it was libel. He had therefor,
to in his own mind decided the great question
of i'll dispute "of libel or m HbeL :" wherea
IS these gentlemen only beHeve Gle existenc,
y of reasonable intention in the prisoner
Id but are not conclusively fixed even on ,ha
Y, point; and have formed no opinion as L
the oUert-act; without proof of which tlt
SIS prisoner cannot be convicted.
= 1t was nnoreoyeraTgucd, on the Part 0
the United States, that the impartiality of
IS Juror ought to consist in his having no f 81
ID ings or opinions relative to the 8u5ject, diff
10 ferent from the feelings add opinions FIN
l. great majority of the people but that.
j. a jury man had acted part different iron
r that which had been acted by tic erea
N majority Of the people If he had NANTES
Dr. ted activity against the prisoner; he nigh
y be considered as partial. An opposite dc
r.. fnition Of impartaiiiy would declare tn
a. great body of the people Unfit to be jury