Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-09-06
VOLUME xxxyE.--No. 80.


lie prsctce IN .ictc York Conformity with TIE
course pursued IN The federal upon the trial
Calender, and which .ooa ed upon thst cf Bgrr
Under the Of Congress commonly called tie :
dillon Law, Cai,Rasr indicted for printing and Pub
song issel called ssThe Prospect before as against
Joaa ADAMS, then President of the Uaiied Setes a
lie Jurors came 10 the hook 10 he sworn the
veraly asked oath. by direction oi me court whc
Their they had formed and delivered any opiGi
respecting the subject then 10 be tiled or con
cefnn9 HE charges contained II he Indictment tn
question was asked o eli eIcep, those 10 whom Ire
counsel tor the accused said unnecessary pr
rnund Il; and all TO wh the question Pot answered
Il Laa:aa.s ress = "a Gas 3t}- il d! 10, appear
~ he bali Of exceptions that The juror was conlor
t. discose bis opiaiDas and The Inferred there.
lore that The disclosures made voluntarily II the
right of the prisoner 10 iaerogair person cssd a.
uror whether he had formed and expressed sp,,IaG
opinion Of his guilt, and u compel him . answer had
been Questioned the SAID would deserve serious
consideration whether departure from The Engir.h
prac;ce in tbs pl!,!cca! on hi be sanctioned Bot
the cues raised b. The record and the court
declared mat wished 20 be distinctly understood
'hrn deciding il
Afterwards. IN Sgrosr.'S Case ? Va Gas 81, tie
suGjrc, was advert i 10 liz t1!lowing !FTms:
w HIS tie prisoner has night 70 sppea! TO the con.
science 81 The ,:Tc: bis tire he gfor Is a.;
obliged 10 answer ans question tending 10 &. infsmY r-
disgrace "a nam IL has been said that ka ro hinged
10 disclose whether lie has las formed anG cr.!yts
ID an opinion the prisoners Tor the tast
such disclosure would tend TO ms disgrace II j.
necessary 10 say whether the latter par; Of the rue
would BE sustained by this court |; certainly
regarded IN B4rrs Be Iha, as NAV If iGroc
hn. IN iTgie such privilege II il certainly III, a4
not i''e Prvl'7ge 81 The Commonwealth
w HAT OPINION ~ 40 pRisOSERs Guilt We. ulscra-
rrFi JUROR. Were i possible, says Chef JgSf.c" H,-
shat 10 ohaIn jury without any Pspnssess:" (" ra'
yer respecting tie guilt innocence Of Tie accused Il
you'd be extremely drs;abIe 10 obtain such intr.-
'ul tn: perhaps impossible, and therefore VIII ~. IL
-sGulred The orH:oR winch las been cvowsa ~ t,.t
court IL that SIT im?res !ch may fairly Re sup
posed 10 yield Ia the testimony that may b. q! red =
winch n,ay Leave The mind open fair consideration 81
that testimony constitute sufficient objection I,
3r" bot ha. those strong and dep Impressions h.c
~ close iflr mno against the testimony that may l.
on red N opposition TO hem-wsich ali combat that
testimony md resist lis fY.ce.dp constitute sGfc!sEt
objection him Those who rs lie nc.ss!.ty ut ii.
ought test him BIZ tbs ,G!e They ugh. hcaf
TIE statement nd- by himself given By others, ard
o"nscrnsoGsiy determine. according 10 their test judy
Teht- whether, N general men under such clrcuGI.
stances ought to BE- considered capable Of hearing
fairly and 81" deciding lmpaiiily The testimony which
mag BE- tired 20 them; possessing a!Els sit:
anon 10 Struggle against The conVic;cn which that les
tImony might hs calculate L. produce; The Court has
considered hose who have deliberately formed and a..
yr,td opinion ~ gu ~ III prisoner no, ue
stale OF mind alrip % weigh the testimony, amt
therefore as being disqualified 70 serve as Jurors tie
case EHrrs Trai. ro' J. p 4iG
III Use cas- OF iHe f'bpfe v b sTNti?. &c y LOW
ID. los. M.. -voruooG. who called jIro-,
testified that lie had heard all he evidence given
former TRIAL HAVING bsen present al II; that he had GltI
his opinion perfectly me evidence. that he &C.
PENDANTS al gully, aud had frequently express
n:s opinion si EFFECT f. answer 10 C9.GIrs made
by lie attorney for the p'os-cC;on. he stated that IL
:rIt 10 bias or Partially against any u The crlsndaa's
That It toe testimony The tia a5put 10 be had
should appear IT id the former he should certainly
fad The drercsn's ali guilty; but he added, that q.
thought he fit COMPETENT 10 give verdict according
h's oath ana the evidence should appear In
court ch tired The The challenge Dvei!ulrE
bat the Supreme curt o! .N,c l0,k held that rLa
i"nge was valid and awarded trial. Hgoircri {,
delivering the opinion If The cCu.t SAID - Mess tie
defendants produced sIe and wcighty evidence
change The prsc.rcevec opinion OF the Juror, their
vIciion was inevitable, 50 ar as th-it Conviction e.
pended on him. We c.nTnt presume that tie evidence
The part ~ the pubic would b. less convincing i.2a
the first a. that the defendants could aGdnce
important additional testimony. II viii not De pretend
tina; any OF Tho Jurors who sat the torEier ra!
you'd D. GtmissGt- urors the :econd ir,s of:la
Indictment cannot discriminate between those
and -yar,ceCd He had formed IS decided IN op
uion on the merits Of the case any If them =
In Lhfeou The Commonwealth Va ca. 3cS tie
prisoner officer u 4 banking institution and there
numerous ind c''nents aaaHst HIM for enht II
varlhus checks and stealing various sums Of money
Upon be!rg arrgigaed oil those indictments hch
'eaIed check OF 7jjaN l. Gu and the rtnire b.cr
cal ed Christopher Irtae OF the PANEL stated his
dre ,has h had formed aud frequently express
decided opinion Of lie prisoners gg that h. bad
heard great q. al of COMPENSATION Tie subj ct Cf
rnus chsraes II etnbrzzcent ol CHECKS and larceny ii
money from The Farmers Bank Ct Virginia BY the pf
soner and that IL hsd formed decided opinion of his
% !, therein wilhnnr bfiag able ts,r ggsb he part
cuIar checks ~ iuoray which formed lie suli-cs
OF the several ind cf-riS araias. him. but That be had
heard of the check Of .7bLqHt "a. beng which lie
prisoner charged WIKI ens zz!iGg and his opinion
Of his guilt related as much 20 That check any olhe'
t.I ,L, ,z,r ID ,l,aa
The charges against the prisoner except that tic st
term, when the subject Of .i5iGn & On cktk ia.
vsstigaied before the Jury he casually il Court d
eren ana heard part Of the evidence though h DID
not rccoIIsc, have heard any part in relation 10 tie
check OF .7khCr a o. that if lmpannelrd in the CHS
he should certainly - into The rIslw opinion ~
Morally that The PRISONER guilty IF The CHR yes H.
had heard ir pG'ed 10 linn .. which the char-e in r.
laion .3tLoa s 10 : check one; tut te!.eEti
nc would be governed By Tie eylteuar. a..oG,., lie
Was wiIltrg trust himself TIE General Ce.- g.
c!L.t hat the prisoners objection i~rtac raass
~ rht haze been Sustained frriae, sid The
had fufCtd and expressed opinion only IT ~.
prisoners guilt but of hi guilt relation u tn ein
b, zzenont of The cbrcs Of .4btcu c.. The 81 ret n
he rsudrg prosecution That upiu!un lie 20 ',sIn-
3D. ,ia' il mpannrsd in the hr cece.cs IL
-honlt 90 into tie tral unter is Influence Il AS
h.rasoe si.rg opinion Of The gun ~ Inc PfIs"Etr
in relation 10 he check f4r the ENHANCEMENT Il which,
lie vas then indicted Y MT Light and hastily
formed impression bat decided OpIrcn Il DIS NOT
apoes+ that This decided opinion, Which lad lrrn -
frequently expressed. formed merely irnm rnm"r
/, nigh, have be-n formed. az least part ar aHgt
That appears the cenrrarc, from he Evidence Of Tie
witnesses pom former ria! Urine bad heard par.
az The evidence The former rrs!, when the subject o
hi4 very cheek before the Jury; and although h
dos not rscnl!pct have heoT shy relation tbs
ceck 70, he .' haze heard without rsco!lsciing it.
and hs opinion might hsve been formed psry from la.
er,derce
II has been snhi"rt Of nrch discussion, v hettcr
rfrd after hearing he testimony of tie uiisrlses in
curt and opinion funded IEmaBr~, rpP7r:s ana
me- spspsr publications II tie case Of Tie Psoyie
.:J,hrr NERD 2S2 the defendant indicted az 4
cnnSPsrau' IN The abduction If Huiurn .b0rean So.
ph,n HsSfin, jsrior. called Juror. win -
called b; The c.feBtant, no trsih't that be Esd
head Martin say that The masonic Institution vas cor
rupt that he believed thst Morgan had been carried