Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-09-06
HsD.fs Est IA.
fOR TIE k.TQ IlhhR.
TRIAL. ny Jury


have been TIE subject Of grnd deal Of comment
We n no. know the precise extent 10 which those opt
Mons went; but have understood The JUDGES h
made them considered them justifrd great degree,
ii entirely. hr the decisions heretofore pronounced
b. The General Court, and especially IN known
! Sprouee's case In he third Volume Of Mr. Conway
Robinson work upon the practice Virginia, em6rsc
ing he practice in criminal now IN press he has
given CONNECTED view az the DECISIONS III Erg!aEd,
Virginia and other States. up"n The subject Of lie com
potency Of jurors and has particularly mentioned and
remarked on sprcgceS We have been furnished
with the priniei sheets relating 70 ii- surl"ct, and deem.
ing Of interest have determined spread the
mailer before rradrrs:
9 WHAT isTERR"GAToEIEs NAY Pc PIT TO l:EoRs
Nhtu person called juror, lie may 10 sworn on
his aud asked "hche! he IS twenty one years
Of opr whether he possessed Of the qualification
10 estate hrh The statute rrescribes: amd whether he
has actd % lie committing magistrate. "a
mrm.r- Of The EXAMINING Court, or a member Ct
the Grand jury j. any - IN Sc CO. stions he nay
c,vr en- orsxer when ~iil <hrw that lie ouEat ne" 10
p~ Juror aud yet HE answer WI not Ge al q!
to his tslonor Grscr,dIl. But can The p! son-T
counsel compel the juror 10 crc!are "h-ti7r Ii has
formed any opinion hIs n!nc 10 t!r guilt Q!
innocence {" the prisoner regard 10 The ui:ce wl
which he prisoner charged, and WHICH TIE juror is
called 'olrg
Tbs question was decided in lie n,gave in 1913, ty
majority If lie Judges the Constitutional Court oE
Syph Car0iiRa IN ar case Of Tic 3iets BaidlciH.
Cons. Rep 80 EGy. J SAID Il dfsaa Innovations,
and very much fear. Il! tbs principle ~'re cnce MIRO
of more lay than most men are aware of More time
would be lost N tins conflict about the importantly 81
in,ynpn inanln the investigation II The mems u the
case FIR The court 70 p-rE Iryr-n 10 De- rmetr ga
ted Their gdccs previous opinions upon the
subject matter nrh hey ca"ui Try, would in nay
oalnn b. the strongest tence OF injurious suspicious
arlinst hem. and Gsrcsalnfy 10 their homo! and ie
rr,y IS hrrss and Irst n. tbs course appear. 10
M 10 he Al war wI:h the rules ni he cDmapn u.
E-.ry man Big lrrse rules. - supposed t. nr innoc-n
ll 1uit made apparent by cue proof; and By pa
r'g every man concerned IN TIE aGlii!-
# ,GsiIre Is supposed unbiased and Impartial
Ill! tic cGnrary made cppeFr. Now this rqu!si.
ior!al - ~ tUiloned upon supposed parnay ana
bias he psrl Of JntS who IS TO pass upon e
teal Of Tor ms HE, without cny previous Ell.
d.ncr wla'eY-r prove sU5s'ansie sCca paiiahly.
According the coc'riue curendrG Tor, i"Fvr I"
b. called upon ~ car- v! et.er he has formed any
op,ni"n upon subj cprnrrg which he has ~ ser
heard sentence nf.vdrnce fired A 10 the loose.
ranGum "f the day out al court III never can
nua be thought III sufficient cnnseGGerc~ 10 me-
III Consideration in the sanctuary ." justice
H. however. aaV nan red as I1;ur should be
los, 10 ell sense Of cuiy and shame as To "'m h.sig
o1ln,un upon such vague and de reports. and 10
press H. such man upon due pOr Of such declarations,
Should ae re-ceG arthy 10 SIT upon t'Ia Where
the !i.r Of a man is cDrcrrnrd Tbs decision has
ever since given the rule IN SaDM Car0Lra 1t w1s
affirmed Tbs >tG:e S'as, = Bailey - aud Tie SiAe
Crank Id 10
In ne cese OF Jo>yA Dcnnie who was tried in tie
Supreme Cour. OF PeHRsys" N l-Uo !ni S-. pre-.
defendant said f9 had received nfn'mati'n thai some
The uio-s ;annpIed had declared telr opinions,
meetings upon the publication; ard moved he
court that the !-stI1n whether they had dsclGrr
Themselves shn'd be prupcunarG 10 them before hey
were sworn Bat the mutton opposed b. Tie Atinr.
nev G-isra vito con:enccd hat il rot proper that
such Gn--on should te pat 70 the jurors. eaec'ed
dl.cr-G.t them; ing tina, such rac'ce had ever
oh,alnpj N lie Engll,h Courts TIL cnuu refused 10
pat ihs question the jurors. See YATES 2d7 Bat,
:ollo@in the Of Lord Chef justice Irty he
trial IT Psir Gan! for ish treason N 1876. tie court
publicly a',C that II al The lurors The box DID
not feel themselves f-rent defend. had
p,rudgat he cause, OF had declared themselves It
heir tcty t" mention i &c the court 10 be judged
OF bY hfm.
Tn- case ~ P.ter Cook will be fnnd in lie l5h 20.
'rnr oi Hou,ls Sisie Tri0Ls p 3:4 he io'iowug
proceedings 10 K place ~hen HGihsr who vas cai.d IS
jGior ask, By Cook whether be had said nat he
believed him gu :
,.2to g,a 'ig lorG lie ask the jury that
question wafh-r ley have declared beforehand that
'hry ~ find h'm guilty That is 10 make EeUi gully
Of mister earour
Sci Earnqg l. j, any rste me orr for me 10 So
thrlk ar br.- ye such ! guLy;
ito g,r /. IL be- summoned be If Jury. and
cccfar. ~ opinion Beforehand r.,>d-u.ean"ur.
Sri E.iaaN Bat suppose II he triore he
mnneG
iro zen II you make any such objection. you mus,
prove a. ard ret out Of tLr jur:rnen own mouth
sDj DJ5aaY. think aoy man. my lord, mat comes
n upun the jury mag be asked any question that
u
-tp 10 ary punishment NV. II any Of these gentle
men that arr returned upon tbs panel! teOTe the
mons hav- declared their opinion that the prisoner
guilty or oug suffer. wih sGbmlssrn the prisoner
nay ass such question, whether he nave ssd So, yea
OF NO.
Jg.i;ss Po,r,H He canrot upon ror DIRE, De asked
ans such CJrsi,Un
Jys,;cs iott'y Il is no, denied 10 be material CD
-ri n hui II must lie made out by proof.
L.rd {. J. I5eLy take liz question not 10 b. COT
crrEnr mans dIscoursirg suPpusIITel? :: as IT, upon
hearing reas report q clear evidence, should
saw Snpo ug has 10 br ge, such Is iy ard
.hrult find Inn 50 If were ci ms Jury. Tins nj GIT
MT h. SUFFICIENT ASIDE crr. For THIS has been
genrrLl among The SUBJ ~cs Upon occasion Il
this cor. rrary ard imports That fevdence should
rnl Be- 'rur Clear, he Would acqnit han 4 nd ne
IS a. H. should o. ind ;rfert But # man ruas.t
fr Juror irn. positively that such prisoner gully.
and ri.a h. y fnd Ism Whatever evidence pro-:
b. ei:rn or made /" The ccrirary lhrk that may BE-
punishable, owning aud eEcoura
grc o. '5srhro Cd rsfjnry ard injustice.
he question IS NJ, whether man 1t eyer such
mrn Ill., r. were hat hath resor't ard declared
SEAL b. On NJ; /" . mt &. Ia uarn Jnry.
Eu h cu-slr j. how iips sha - Giscoyeffd-Ly his
oFu oath Or by Other proof think II ough, 20 10
mad a,.,ar - oh,f proni II .t'a'nt,d Of
felony ,g-ry. fase verde, Or perjury 'ccht not 10
Ty- Jury, VI III shall not be examined concern
inI Tia. - rop Ore
Tie Courr cf Krg's Bench had the scbirc before i!
a. late sI-2l In Tie ling EamoTds &c 4 Barn.
& 40 al Eng Common Lev Rep. iyl. con-
v.con upun !nG!ctmea Cor conspiracy .r defend
am. moved fr tri.!. upon various gfnCrcs. One
wss refusal o. cha gr uaor SrcsuSr 81 lbr Sup
pos sxe-sson, bg Jury men q opinions hostile
10 liz ard lhrIr "a hsr tie refusal
10 hrsr hat Of crace which Caetec "a sup
prr, ,Is challenge There aItrnpt TO prove any
sur hostility ~ any ex;'asIc evidence out
80. rcpnscd .b'au proc! rs que PM 10 the
iury men themselves The Judge 10 tired III cause
riu.-d el!c such qrscns = b answersf; and tie
Court III K.nrs Bench H. Is thai IT, RICH; IN tbs
r.i s.trr leo rrllT Drtf ~ gt.rI
sad lie aulArIilss sh-wsc that he Gryman himself
wa n4 IL where The caus" of cha!lrnss !enced
10 his shuaur ard II was sLgLOrao'e 'nIrEio
:lan press ~ viii towards person accused Q;
u 1 , L. 4 L.. |