The Trinity journal., 1856-03-01
Qualification of Grand Jurors.


We notice in the proceedings Of the Court
of Sessions, for Shasta County, at the Feb.
Term, the following:
1He People rs. John Mullen and Margaret
MulSeR-Indictmen for Grand Larceny
Motion to set aside the Indictment on the
ground that one Of the Grand Jurors had
formed a decided opinion that the defend
ants were guilty Of the offence charged in
the indictment, before he was empanneled
on the Grand Jury.
The motion was sustained.
The Shasta Courter in noticing the decis-
ion, and commenting upon the law, says;
For this reason the Court decided that the
bill was improperly found, and that a grand
jury should be as free from prejudice, under
the Statutes Of California, as a petit jury
should be. His having made up and eX-
pressed an opinion on the subject, would have
excluded him from the petit jury box, and
consequently he was disqualified from acting
as a grand Juror Hence the law permit
ting grand Jurors to be called to testify be-
fore their fellows, would either disqualify the
member thus called, for further service as
juror, or it would yitatc the presentmeut it.
SELF
Query? Would not that fact iuyalidatc
the acts Of that Grand Jury? If one in
dictment was defective, by reason Of the M
per)ccl5en or WegoAty Of the grand juyq
would not that same disability extend to oH
the acts and doings Of that body.
Query? Would the fact that a petit
juror, summoned for the term Of Court as
one Of the regular panel, having expressed
an opinion iuregard to the merits Of the first
case on the docket, dsqualily him, as ju-
ror, in all tie subsequent cases on the dock
ct? We thiul not.
Section PSI, Of an Act to regulate pro-
ceedings in criminal cases, provides that a
person held to answer to charge for pub
lie offence, may challenge the panel Of the
grand jury, or any individual grand juror
A cause Of challenge to an individual grand
juror is defined in the same act Sec 1888,
Subdivision 9th, to be, that he has formed
or expressed decided opinion that the de-
tcudant is guilty OF the offence for which he
is held TO answer Sec Z91 Of the same
act provides that, when the defendant had
not been held to answer before the finding
Of the indictment, he may move to set it
aside on any ground which would have been
good ground for challenge, either to the
panel, or to any individual grand juror
Our Statutes clearly provide that any cause
that would disqualify person from being q
petit juror, woulG render him incompetent
to become grand juror We are unable to
see any necessity for a change in the law in
this respect Why person should be al
lowed TO be present at the finding Of an in
dctment against an individual for whom his
prcjudlces are SO great that it required no
evidence to prove guilt, is more than we can
answer TAc liberties Of an individual are
as sacred to him in tie grand jury room as
they are in the petit jury box, and should be
guarded BY minds equally unbiased. IN the
closing remarks Of the article, the following
language is used
If this decision be law, no indictments can
be bad against any bawdy house or notori-
Gus nuisance, under our statutes.
Query? Isitmore necessary that grand
juror should have expressed his opinion as to
the guilt or innocence Of a person charged
with keeping a bawdy house than other
crime