The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-05-18
Before Hon. Judge Ingersoll.

i bsiorc hon. Judge ingersoli.
QUESTION AS TO THE POWER OF THE GRAND JURY IN
RELATION TO THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSED.
The Grand Jury into court and Mr. McKeon
the United States District Attorney said to the Court
that he bad been requested by the Grand Jury to
to the Court several questions which they desired
be instructed, which were as follows
l. Has The Grand Jury. before 8n ling bill against
any accused the right to hear witnesses for the
II III ccstenpt OF court for any person not con.
Deced with tbs court TO any Grand Juror
ter whicSH, may come, before the Grand Jurys
the testimony OF an aceompIcs adsquste reason
Has ias Dstrsct Attorney any right to be present
in te Grand Jury room dusins the exar,inaton Of wit
nessess
gentlemen with regard TO the most Of what you have
asked The Grsni Jury to examine nto the matters
brought before bam to find cut IL there reason to
beheve that tie offence has BEEN committed And IL
they satisfied from the test mony which Is brought
before them tha.suc the fact they to 6nd the
BILL 1t follows, srcm tnis rale that evidence
the case upon the evidence on the part OF the
nent and then it to the Petit jury not ony upon
osrsa IN behalf Of IKE accused or asssoss nm ana the
Petit Jury is to oetsrmae upon the whole evidence,
rhether the charge rsaoe BY tho Grand JUICY
The next question is whether accoaplce o sufi-
cent witness to warrant the finding of BILL There
have been doubts exTsssed at various times by dife
rent Judges whe tt at evideree adequate
rant conviction upon alone, By Petit Jury, and 1t
has claimed that it not enongh for that purpose
unless is corroboratsd by the Testimony Of other wit
But the correct rule upon this point is that
Petit Jury convict upon that evidence alone they
belevs the accomplce speaks the truth and If the
Petit Jury may convict upon that evidence much more
may the Graz Jury bring in bill upon it. 1t is part
Of toe oath which you have taken that you win keep
secret the counsel of yourself and your fellows What
Ianspres IN the Grand jury room Is not to be made
known beyond its walls No outside therefore,
fore amy approach to Grand Juror either way him
in his action or to into tns secrets Of the jury isl
court. In the State courts 1t would be considered
misdeneapor there being State law which makes it
the subject though indeed subject has come sudden
~ upon me- lsboud, ho owever, consider 1t contempt
saessoD Of be sisa a. ss The %anps
present with the Grand jury have no doubt thnt he
has no right to be present durngt deberaon of the
jury, or 10 argue the case to them but although
have not had the opportunity to examine the
point, am inclined to think that he has the right
to be present during the examination Of the wit
Lesses. am not wiling to give decided opinion
the point until have examined it thoroughly.
understand that the practice has been that he should
be present to examine witnesses both in this district
and in the Northern district of the State aud should
be inclined to follow that practice unless should
clude that it was clearly inadmissible will comnsun-
cate further with you on the subject at some future
MT McKecn here read to the Court decision or Judge
McKesn of PeDnsyvania, the right OF tae jury to
hear Witnesses for the deencs and on tho amount Of
evidence required 10 warrant the finding of bill
Judge lpgerson said that as what he had said might
not have been perfectly clear to the jury he would say
ether than those furnished by the District Attorney and
the evidence might perhaps be 10 the defence
as, for nttsuce II drunken vsgsoend should be
brought before the jury for the purpose procuring
the Indictment Of Mr. KcKeon, and during his examina-
ton witness he should state that when the offence
was committed Mr. Ogden Hoffman, and Mr. Hillyer the
Marshal, present and it, it would be the right
Of the Grand Jury to send for Mr. &c iman and Mr. Hill
yer tell what they know about IT, although their
evidence might exonerate M McKesn entirely that
to the cunt OF evidence necessary warrant the find
ing CT bill is had been doubted formerly whether 1t
would not be sufficient il probable shown,
but that the better ips held to be that the sv
dence must be such that the Grand Jury could say
upon their saths, that the evidence il stood be-
fore them uncontraocted tho accused guilty Of the
offence charged upon bim