American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1827-12-04
Reportpi for the PHILADELPHIA, U. s. Gasette.
COMMONWEALTH as. WIN. LEsHER.

Judge hhIets was holulnS the nlsi ptins, anu was
sent of to hear the arguments OF counsel. and
give his op'nion in the following case.
The defendant was indicted for Ter. After
calling several jurors and gualityln- them sepa
rately. Isaac ". Morris Ia member Of the society
Of Ftienilsl was called and not challenged by the
defendant. MIR. Morris then requested the court
TO excuse him from serving on the Jury, as he had
conscientious scruples against finding verdict
which would take away the life Of the prisoner.
even if the evidence warranted such verdict.
After this declaration he was challenged by the
counsel for the commonwealth, l.. Nj. Petit
who aedsed that the declaration Of the Juror was
good cause tor challenging him, as he was BIASED
against the commonwealth. lie cited the princi
pies of the law in 5 Black. Com. 36l and Chitty's
Criminal Law, III relation to challenges, and rea-
soned from analogy that the juror not onni ear
cepiio major and mentioned that the reason why
this point mad never been decided in England was,
that Qaakers are prohibited by statute from serving
in criminal cases unless they take an oath.
Watmough, Mclaughlin, and ID. p. Brown, for
the defendant, contenled that this was no ground
for challenge, that it abstract opinion of the
juror which did not incapacitatc him from serving
that the principles in 5 Black. were confined to
ciril cases, and cited Black. 552-that the juror
hal no predeermnation for or against the prison.
er, and that challenge for favor is for some par
ticuiar prediction for either party, not vague
They referred to the case Of the Commonwealth
vs.. James Allen, before the late chief Justice
Tllghman and the present chief justice, the Judge,
Gibson, where it was said TIL. point vas decided
to be NJ case of challenge, at an Oyer and Ter
miner at Philadelphia in Nov. 1921.
Petit in reply. said that this point was not de,
cided in Aliens case that the juror there refused
to be sworn or affirmed. and committed 10 pri-
son by the court tor contempt. lie stated case
before Judge Ross in Montgomery county, where
he was told taa similar declaration Of nfoi
was decided to be good for challenge for
the Commonwealth
The judges delivered their opinion separately
Gibson, C. ibid not think tic general opin-
ION of the juror any ground q challenge; he sta
ted the case decided by himself and the late chief
justice who he said was most excellent criminal
lawyer aud whose opinion he respected very high
yin tie Commonwealth vs. Allen, where the
juror refused to be sworn affirmed and was com
lntted to prison by the court .,r the thought the
point commended for here by the prisoners counsel
was recognized there.
'ihi- did not come within any Of the causes
Of challenges aid down IN the elementary books
the opinion Of the juror is erroneous in al
stiaot qpeston-,t ~ a hypothetical une which is
not sound the law does not permit chalege for
such.
We cannot lesslate on tllis subject II must
pc left tor the correction of the legislature
Rogers, Stated lie did not think the ar.u
ments OF counsel had embraced tie point The
juror wished to BE- excused as he had conscientious
scrupipS against finding verdict which would take
the lite Of the prisoner. If the court were to com
pei hun TO serve they would place him in this d
icmma, either Of finding verdict against his oath
or OF violating bis conscience A qualification is I
imposed on the jaror to find tile prisoner guilty or
not guilty according to the evidence Suppose the
evidence warranted finding him guilty, he would
he Obliged to hnd him SO Wy the terms Of the quail
ficaton. On the other hand his conscience fprbds
him TO DO 50, and he placed in struggle between
ms oath.and his conscience. He did not think the
court had any right or power to force an indiyida
ri TO this. The Juror says to the court lgaa lnp
not into tsmptuton,'' and the court are bound d
excuse him. The provision Of tic constitution
too. which guarantees free opinions to every cit-
Gen would grant him relief. 1t secures him from
aduty which would compel him to violate his con
ccnce. He would not excuse Juror unless Ii,
had conscientious Scruples
Members Of the Society Of Friends especially,
are known to have such scrupes which would III
1nce nm generally to excuse a Juror who is one
OF them. II neither party to challenge
Juror, and the juror stated he had such conscen
tlous scruples, he could claie,ge himself and he
would permit him to do 50,
Tod, did not think juror had right to
challenge himself. 1t would be impossible ID pro.
cure jury It every one permitted to do So
The duties Of jurors public duties. and are
onerous and they would escape the performance
Of them, which are required Of every citizen, il
this way.
II he thought the late chief justice had decided
this very point, he would yield to his opinion
bat the case before him was different from this.
bias against either party i good cause of
challenge. Here the juror states to the court that
if he is placed on the jury and the evidence would
warrant conviction which would take away the
life Of the prisoner, he could not consent to such
verdict II such persons not permitted to be
shallenged by the commonwealth. tie criminal