The Georgetown news., 1855-09-27
rn.grlst.ns pe..sion oe t..c s,,,,rs,ns

reperted in the Sacramento papers OF last
Monday. The opinion OF Judge Bryan is
fully and clearly eXpressed:
The People VS.. NeStor Reges and c Fa}e1a-
e;q.-1he defendants, as appears Of record.
being citizens Of Mexico. were indicted for
an assault with an intent to conmitmurder
and having plead not guilty, the Court pro
ceeded to empanel a jury for the trial OF the
c2usa, during which R. 7. Avery was called
as Il Juror, and was challenged by the coun-
sci for the defense, upon the ground OF actu-
al bias against the defendants 1riers were
appointed and sworn to determine the ques
ton of bias in the Juror, and upon the eX-
animation Avery. the person called as iu-
ror. was sworn, aud the following questions
were propounded to him by the counsel for
tie defense:
lst. Are YOU not member Of a secret
and mysterious order known as and called
Know Nothings, which has imposed on you
an oath or obligation, beside which an oath
administered to you in a court of Justice, if
in conflict with that oath or obligation.
would be by you disregarded?
ID. Are you a member Of any secret as
sociation. political or otherwise, by YOUR
oaths Or Obligations, to which any preiu-
dice exists in your mind against Catholic
foreigners?
Sd. Do you belong to any secret politi-
cal society known as and called by the peo-
pie at large in the United States. Know
Nothings? And if so, are you bound by
an oath or other obligation not to give a
prisoner Of foreign birth, in court of JUS
tice, fair and impartial trial?
4th. Have you at any time taken an oath
or other obligation of such character that
It has caused prejudice in your mind
against foreigners?
9th. Are you under any obligation not
10 extend the same rights. privileges, pro-
lection and support to men of foreign birth
as to native born American citizens?
6th. Have you any prejudice whatever
against foreigners?
The Court ovverruled all the foregoing
questions, and the cause now comes to US
for review Of the action of the Court be-
low.
Wherever the right of trial by jury ex-
lists, the law in ali cases contemplateS
that each and every juror who sits in case
should have mind entirely free from al!
bias or prejudice OF am kind whatsoever
In order to arrive at the condition of the
persons mind who is offered as d juror, a
party is permitted to ask the person himself
questions, the answers to which NAV tend
70 show whether he is preiudiced or not in
the cause which he Is about to undertake to
decide Ii not satisfied with his answers he
can Charge the person offered as Il Juror with
actual bias, and ii the charge is denied its
truth Or falsity must be determined by tri-
ers the trierS are to determine a fact
from the testimony, and any testimony
which would lead to the conclusion that a
bias existed in the jurors mind, is compc-
tent testimony. Ii the prejudice with which
the juror is charged, is to be determined
one way or the other by distinctions or in
ferences drawn by the Court from the Ques-
tons pnt to the witness, there would be no
necessity for triers where actual bias is
charged. Prejudice is state Of mind which
in the eve Of the law, has no degrees. If
the juror is prejudiced in any manner. he is
not a fit or proper person to sit in the box.
To ascertain whether a bias exists in the
mind of the juror, resort must be had TO his
declarations to others or to his sworn state
ments when interrogated. As the Juror
best knows the condition of his own mind,
no satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at
without resort to himself Applying this
test, then, how is it possible to ascertain
whether he is prejudiced Ornot, unless ques-
tions similar to the foregoing are propoun-
ded to him? He is charged with belonging
0as3rtt association, ard with being, as a
member of such association, under obiga-
tl0uS which might create prejudice against
foreigners who may reside in the country.
To ascertain that iact and in order to purge
the Juror of the charge of bias, he is asked
the question" Have you at any time ta-
ken n oath or other obligation Of such
character that it has caused a prejudice in
your mind against foreigners?' This GER
tainly was not an impertinent question IN a
cause where foreigners were parties, what
ever reasonable effect it might have upon
the minds Of the triers. The person might
have answered that he held political pre-
jadice against foreigners, but that he enter
tanned no bias which would lead him to de-
ny TO foreigners a fair trial and a just and
impartial administration of the law.
Prejudice being state of mind more fre-
quenty founded in passion than in reason,
may exist with Or without cause, and to
ask person whether he is prejudiced or not
against a party, and (if the answer is affir-
m4tive) whether that prejudice is Of such "a
character as would lead him to deny the
party fair trial, is not only the simplest
method of ascertaining the state of his mind,
but is probably the only sure method OF
fathoming his thoughts and feelings If the
person called had not taken an obligation
ghich would prejudice him against foreign
er5 in such a manner as to imperil their
rights in court of law, he could say SO
and the question and answer would be harm
less. Ii, upon the other hand, he had taken
0athS and was under obligations which III
haenced his mind and feelings in such a
manner as to deny 10 O foreigner an impair