New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-20
CHALLENGES TO JURORS.

Challenges, or objections to man summoned as
q Juror acting as SUCH Of three kinds of which
the first are peIemptory challenges. The law in
certain cares gives party the privilege of object
ing to limited number of the jurors called, with
out assigning any reason. The second kind are
CHALLENGES founded on some alleged legal incapacity
In the Juror, as that he is under age, or the like
As this is question of law, the facts being admit
ted or proved, the court decides whether the juror
is legally competent or not. The third kind are
challenges founded not on alleged legal incapacty,
but on supposed personal favor or enmlty toward
one of the parties Here the objection is one OF
opinion, derived from facts The validity of such
an objection is question requiring plain common
sense. and not legal knowledge, for its decision
and hence over such challenges the court has no
iurisdiction. The objection is referred to two or
more Jurors already impanneed, called in law
triors the alleged facts, showing Partially, arc to
be proved before the triors and it is their province
TO decide whether the juror is indifferent or not
Such is the plain, practical, commonsense mode
of procuring an impartial jury provided BY the
common law.
A new system of determining challenges to the
faror was some twenty five years ago introduced
by the Supreme Court of this S'ate-a system ut
teIly III known to the common Law, and which has
been attended with most unhappy consequences
On inpaheliDg a jury at the Oyer and Terminer,
in a csse of assault and battery, juror, when
called to be sworn, was asked by the counsel for
the defendant if b had formed an opinion in the
case. He ans 9ered that he was totally unac-
ouainted with either party, but that he had read an
account of the transaction in the newspaper, and
thought the defendant culpable. The defendants
counsel then moved that be be set aside. The
Judge overruled the motion; the juror took his
seat, and verdict Of guilty was returned. Tho
Supreme Court granted a new trial on the ground
that the man having formed an opinion from the
newspaper report was biased aud therefore in.
competent Juror. The whole proceeding, from
first to last, with the single exception of the de-
csion of the Judge, was irregular and illegal, and
conveys an impressive lesson on the i'll consequence
of rashly disregarding principles and rules estab
lisbed ard sanctioned by the experience Of centu-
ries In the first place, the question to the juror
was On improper one, and the Jadge ought not to
have allowed it to be put The juror had come
forward TO swear that he would return true YER
dict according to evidence. Yet he was asked
question with a view to convict hin, by his
own confession Of an intention to violate his oath
or at least of mental inability to observe it, The
English Courts have decided that such questions
may not be put to jurors After the question had
been answered, the accused had right TO chal
lenge tie Juror for favor, and to demand that the
challenge be determined by triOrs. Instead OF do.
ing 60, he appealed to the Judge who very properly
decided that the juror was not legally incompetent
The Supreme Court, 10 reversing this decision
the Court below, set at naught the well. known
principles and rules of the common law in regard
to challenges to the favor. So far is mere opinion
founded OIL knowledge or information, from eXcud-
inc from The jury.box under that law, that an
GENTLY juries we're required to be taken from the
ricinage or neighborhood, as being probably ac-
ouainted with the parties and the matter in con
troversy, and therefore better qualified to do JUS
tice. A juror may, moreover, be witness either
for or against the nan he is trying; aud in this
" dtnce you shall give to this Court and your tei'
" lors," and 80 Oh. In trials before the House OF
Lords, innumersble are the instances in which
Peers have given their testimony to their fellows"
ard then resumed tier seats as Judges.
That man, however intelligent aud upright, is
not to be trusted on oath as juror, merely be-
cause he has Of necessity formed an opinion in con-
sequence Of what he has heard or read position
utterly absurd in ITSELF and disastrous in its cOnse
quences The more fragrant, public and certain is
the crime, the more difficult will ii be to bring the
criminal to justice Should the Mayor of this City.
while reviewing tho troops from the steps of the
City Hall, be murdered in the presence Of Assem-