The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-06-19

Gu or acquitted by the evidence given in hi
presence. That the minds os those who are
tn decide are before the Trial to be FIRE,
from preJudgment; that in the course of tn,
rial no Impression ought to- operate or
tneir minds, except what is derived from
the Testimony given in Court that the Jury
si'ail continue impartial and unbiased, tina,
20 ensure this they should not be allowed
oy me court to separate, are points acknowl.
by All.
/ The object is impar,iality, & Keeping the
" jury together until they agree without com
muncation with others. is the mean, by
which this all important object is TO be
attained.
Ehe keeping them together, has bee n dis
Pensed with in cases of great necessity :
put lmpartality never. 1t is contended
IN the argument on one hand, that they are
| to be Kept entirely inaccessible SO that com
| munciation with them should be absolutely
| impossible and on the other, that mere
separation, unless it be proved that there
mas been some conversation or tampcrine
with member ofthe Jury, shall not vitia.e
the Verdict, and that there must be proof
III this to work such effect. By the point
adjourned in this case, the Court is no, cali.
| ed on to decide whether the verdict shall
ne set aside unless access be impossible. -
| ihey are called on to.decide only whether
such separation as is proved by the affida-
WIS IN this case, is A sufficient cause for Vi
tiasng 1t. One of the Jurymen in this case,
during a temporary adjournment of the
| l;ourt, went to the house at which he boar
| ded without the officer of the Court, not
withssandlng the admonition and personal
| attempt OF the officer to prevent it, and ac-
| cording to the affidavit of the. officer was
absent IS or 20 minutes. This officerdid not
attend this Juryman, but returned to the
other Jurymen. BY the affidavit Of a per-
son whostated to the JuI.yman above alluded
to, the improperly of his separating from
| the rest OF the Jury, (the Court having di-
rected that they should remain together, il
appears that the Juryman stated that his
goods (tor anght he knew were exposed in
the Street to the negroes
he person with whom this Juryman boar
ded' states, that the Iuryman was in his
room, when he was called to dinner. He
| appears by this. affidavit TO have been al the
boarding house about twenty six minutes
he afhant believed that the Jurvman. ex-
cePt whist dining, remained in his own
Room, and states that the afiiant was not in
the dining Room, and does not know what
were the subjects of conversation during din
ner.
The Iuryman separated himself whilst
the 'SheriH was going with the Jury to-
| wards the Jury room The officer return.
! ed from the steps of the Portico of the CAPT
toflas understood by the Court) to the rest
| ot the Jury, whom he had left in the midst
OIL the croud, and then returned to the door,
and saw the luryman going down the Ca
pitoi Hill.
Another.luryman liz the morning of ano-
tAer day OF the trial attended by the Officer.
went to visita sick chi!d-rhey were alb
SEM ABOUT twenty minutes and the officer
renamed below, whilst the Jurymap
/ went up stairs to see his family. and
was absent from the officer about five mi
nutes.
is the separation proved by this testimony.
then, sufficient cause tor setting aside the
verdict d
The majority of the Court is Of opinion
that proof of actual tampering or CONVEX
, saton on the subject with Juryman. is not
necessary to set aside the verdict and the
propriety of this opinion, they think. results
from the nature of things and the rules of
evidence.
from the mode in which collusTon and
tamPernSls generally carried on. such cir
cumstance is generally known to no
person except the one tamperfng, or the
person tampered with, OF the persons be-
tween whom conversation may be held
"hicn might influence the verdict. Ii YOU
question either OF these persons on the sub
JeCt, ne must criminate. or declare himself
innocent, and You lay before him an induce
ment not to give correct testimony. The
ola rule was, that the Jury on i,o occasion
should separate. mentioned (tho' il was
with difficulty that the rule has been az ali
relaxed,) that 1t IS relaxed only in cases of
imperlous or perhaps of unavoidable necessi
~. But by allowing that Jury may sena-
rate without necessity, and that their YER
dlct shall stand, unless the patty accused.
VINO IN these cases is in the custody of law.
can she that the Jury not cnly have Sc.
par ated, but that they or Il member of #
mas also been tempered with, or held Com
munication on the subject this great Bar
rler against oppression may gradually BE
Slapped and undermined, and tie Bulwark
cannot long remain. Such Preceden,
you'd be productive Of 7ils ncalculable e;
too great, Tor the Court by its decision ~ al
low door TO be opened for them. F.veyv
danger and particularly in such a case as
TINS, should BE- watched and opposed in the
beginning. The Court will presc,.v ,,ith
" fear and jealousy" and viii not exnoSe.
the trial by Jury in criminal cases ~ snch
sque OF contamination as arises from the
aiadavits in this case. If the Court had
without necessity suffered a Juryman to 90
nome without an officer (Which it would ne
erdo) 1t would yitiatc the verdict There
Is as much danger from Jurvman's sena.
rating without the act Of the Court az e !,
hadbeen by such act. -
Attn there might be, and probably was
no tamperlng with any Juvyfnan in this case
yet M a free Country, in deciding a part;cu
4 lIT cause tho Isc:o;nr &. - II