Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-09-06

been formed upon aud printed statements or
,,pon ru,nrr Go:e. immaesGl; that il is not neces
say to tie occasion or weigh The evidence on
whisi The "pt'"n - founded; that the Disqualification
10 attached the FAC; of forming a expressing the OPT
nion aud that il thu opinion he liked one, "h'ch u
would cure testimony I" remove, The Juror ought not
In be allowed II SIT upon the trial HecoTa Common
aeea!h KNAPP, 8 Pick. 400
2va Cas- 375, tina, the challenge OF The Juror Wan"
was good in law and ought To have been sustained goes
farther Than cnv which has been cited Utant was
moi al The Examining Court had not heard the evidence
in the case conversed with any o! the witnesses
He could say whether The persons from whom he had
heard the relations of the evidence were present al 'he
Examining Court or not. All that he could say was
that he had heard the subject of the trial frequently IN
the county; and that upon such relations OF the tn as
he had heard (Which he believed 10 be irue he had form
I'd pretty substantial opinion, ond expressed The same
more than The expressly stated hathe OPT
MON hich he had aken up and frequent expressed was
founded on unour in the county And he said, he
thought that nolw outstanding the lorna ion and expires
SION Of such opinion he could juror DO justice 10 the
prisoner ta, he fell prejudice, and was open TO con-
vicl,n Because the prisoners challenge OF this Juror
for cause ovsrrucd By The court below The Gene
raj Court reversed the judgment against hm set aside
the verdict, and sent back the cause ior new Tiai
il "a belle we'd that this decision cannot be sustained,
either on principle consistently with subsequent ad
Indications. person in whose presence statement IS
made Of criminal accusation ard Of lhe circumstances
addnccd in support oil H. is apt osay To The person eii'
ing m Of the matter thai from what he tells hin the
accused has done that he deserves pnnshmen
and the subject is mentioned to INN, he rn"y
make n similar remark. Afterwards, when sworn Oh
his roir doe he mny that he has formed aud ex.
plrged an opinion; nay, his language may be ,' he
I rsf ap Pa Ba aS Ssfas4 "s
Ter Of The opinion formed: The Juror requeni. does
moi know VIA, facts The law requires TO be proved IN
order to establish the offence and alter being nPnnnci-
led is usually only willing hu. pleased I" receive IN
formation from The court upon the subject He has
scarcely 10 any case decided opinion that The evidence
in the cause sufficiently proves The iacis constituting ne
offence lie comes 10 the book TO De s"otn' WIN ane
purpose Of giving verdict according 10 me evidence
that shall be aclusiiy before the jury tie has no hxeu
opinion that the party s under the law, 10 be aeehfa
guilty ol the utnce alleged against him. and no deter
nina,ion 10 find him guilty unless the law and e epi
d.nee shall warrant it, In truth, the opinion Formed by
The Juror is commonly nothing than ths that The
party ought be punished II he has done what IS OIL
ierrd and that the circumstances related If they shall
appear in evidence at The trial, will operate against him
OpIsioS NEST BE A DEcipED ONE AS TO GUILT OK ~
SocESCE-Ihe decisions ascertain that IL 10 mol enough
for Juror to say tina, he has formed opinion or that
he has formed and pressed opinion unless appear
ths, his opinion is fixed decided one In PUhn'aV
Tic Communicable Rand Gao the juror de; ossd that he
heard one Of The testify at the called court ana
upon his evidence formed opinion at that time that
he did not know whether he had expressed The opinion
30 formed or not, but thought il most probable that he
had that he had udce against the prisoner or his
cause, The time he deposDg, and he hsiitV' he
could give the prisoner fair trial as he had never
heard any thing The subject In this case, II was held
that The challenge for could not be sustained
Sol Broas Case Leigh 76o, the juror said tina. he
had expressed opinion on The circumstances us he au
heard them narrated in the country but he had not hear
any Of the evidence given the examinations or con
versed with any Of the witnes parties, and he dd
not think the opinion formed would have any irhu
ence his mind in trying the case The challenge "t
cause held this Also 10 have been properly
overrultd. "Ihe opinion OF The Juror, SAID The Curt
"may hay. been but little than impression
If it was an opinion iorned wiou much deliheration,
the
without rejecting the various rSmnrs he may hay"
heard, il might b. called opinion; bit surely u "aS
one which sight which could 7'adiy yield 10 sv /
dence, and which could not BE- SAID 10 Dc hIed, oeios
rae, decided
JuGoR COMPETENT IF ms OPINION BE HYPOTHETICAL
In no ought The objection tia, the juror has formed
opinion has formed and expressed an opinion, 10
be deemed valid objection, when II appears from The
Jurors Whole statement, tina, The opinion which has been
formed is merely BY pn,lietcal.
In Sprnuc:s Case Va C,s 81. il appeared By The
oath Of JOAN Terrell of the that he had not
heard any Of The evidence in the bu, that person
who was at The Examining Court had detailed TO him
til evidence Of Patsy Hoods, " ho sad 10 be The
principal wGess in The prosecution and had nenhoned
that there several witnesses who seemed to con
radict her statement that he The Juror had stated that
If tie erd, deut'td rgc he Gersd the prisoner
Sur; but that the prisoner stranger 10 she jar"
he resided a cast 10 miles from him that he me
Juror felt prejudice in his mind against HIM. that he
open conviction and ready TO 60 The prisoner
justice; and if the facts did not iu'n out os they mao
ocnion The Judges Of The Genera Court were unani
mausy Of opinion that The challenge OF the juror was
correctly overfucd
In Mcndu,ns Case 6 Rand, 70S, Daniel Chathi,y
was called as venirehnn, and being swoin 10 answer
auesons SAID that he had heard detailed &C
coun, Of The evidence against The prisoner; that he had
heard nothing rG"re than that The prisoner had been
CHARGED with killing mnn; AFRO the Impression MADE on
his mind was that II guilty, be sheud BIZ punished, but
If not; that he should be acquitted On examiEa
t"n, he said he had impression on his mind made by
VIVA, lie had heard, nnd that Ire Gss not know II
the Jury, that re should be ab!e 10 render vcrdct
free Of influence from The impression then and pFevi
Gusiy existing his mind bu. ON further examination,
he stated that the Impression on his mind aud which ne
thought would remain 10 What ought 10 be done
with guilty II such Offences, and not the: the
prisoner guilty not saying also, that he felt pre-
pared hear The evidence and decide the by II,
The challenge held, by the unanimous opinion 81
the court. TO have been rightly ovrrruied
In Osandcrs Case, Leigh 1e0 the juror said, he had
heard the reports OF the country, and thought he had
heard Of the witnesses state The circumstances ara
he formed hypo,h tical opinion OF the truth OF The
reports he had heard he had doubt, at the time oil
hearing the (And he expressed no doubt on his
examination II the same facts should be satisfactorily
proved the trial. he would come TO The same concu
sion But # The proof should change alter the case
from The reports be had heard OF IT, be felt satisfied that
he would be able decide The according 10 the EVIL
dence, without being in any degree influenced ~ me
reports he had heard The impression which they had
made on his mind Held that The challenge of the juror
for cause rightly overru!ed.
The decision 10 HsnarirkS Case, Leigh, 707. Is III
conformity with The last Hendrtck was joint
ly indicted with Hags fer felony, but was Separate
" tried At his trial, j Hall. being called as juror
and examined his lire, said, he had heard part
ofthe evidence former investigation and had form.
ed some opinion thereon, which yet remained on his
mind but the opinion formed did not give his mind
any leaning for against The prisoner and be wns salts
fed he could pass upon his case as mpartiay as if he
had never heard Of it. Being asked by The prisoners
counsel whether if the evidence should be the same
with had before heard his opinion would not be
the same in relation liz he answered, he presumed
would, as far his opinion would be founded on that
evidence but juror his opinion would be The result
the whole evidence in the Hudson being called in