The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-06-10

J,
satisfied that 1t st exists and the motion TO quAsh the
cerorar in this case s therefore denied indctment
may nevertheless be hereafter re nandsd TO me court
require that procedure I'd r. 742 2S) the most ma
teis and BY far the difficult question presented for
be charged ON the ground that fair and impartial trial
cannot be had in the city and county OF New YORK.
There many pAlpabe reason why trials Ia criminal
should ordinarily be had in the ties where the
transactions which gave iise to them occurred aud
change she ud not be made except for rcole and clear
ly established causes Our statutes require mat Issues
Of fact joined upon any Indictment shall be tried by
jur, in the county where such indictment was found
for special the Supreme Court shall order
roue other county cd S. 7s3, SD Mr.. Chisty says
(voL p 1857 that Not very strorg evidence OF par
iAiy win be required in order TO induce tbs court to
listen to the application for the removaP' Ito another
place of tra To that cannot assent nor Is the posi-
tn supported by the authorities to which the learned
Harris. Sd Burrows, r. 1889. Lord Mansfield said:
There must be a clear and solid foundah IN for the
suggestion (of partiality) The question as to the
refer exclusively to his feelings bat extends TO any
opinion which he may have formed and expressed ia rs
sy and which may q. all pauence his decision. Thus
who acted Grand Juror aen the -
feurd or who lin case involving the NE OF the secused
csnpot from conscientious scruples render yerdict
which would lead TO the punishment Of ceath Is ciquat
fed although he has NO hostile or favorable feeling TO
wards the defer dant. Some If tie English authorities
to dicate hat feeling Of the juror either
hostile rit IDLY must bs involved in the objection 70
render esctusl but has been otherwise adjudeaed
In this State In the Of the People Vermilyea
the English and American authorities eaoorately
revie we'd By Judge Wooiworh and he expresses op
nios, in which the other judges ecncnrred that ehA
lepge because The juror had expressed opinion Is for
principal and need not be accompanied b person
Al i'll win to render il valid DIST Cowen 1881 A juror
should have the ability and who Is coBscisntious
would feel the inclination to decide al questions OF fact
submitted to him solely from fall snc impartial view OF
orsoeratops but that would be difficult II not imyos.
sibe, where he had previously FOL med and expressed
sire ng opinion upOa the matter especially If II CORES
popce6 with ths public sentiment. Let him exert him
self as he may he cannot wholly avoid the difficulty Hs
will, in . case where the testimony is CONTRA
sT.e. weight to .hs whsh su,,as s' thsn
that which opposes his reconce2tion = such is
the inhrmity OF the human mind, andwe must take 1t
ind it. When ths opinions extend so far as 20 b.
come the general sentiment in tie community where
rial of exciting IS had it forms serio obstacle
be arrested when that possible In the under
siderston there c'rcum cacusted ID
attract attention, and to induce the formation and
preston OF opinion especially in community proven
bally excitabe OF these some OF the pro ninent
were the public character Ct the deceased and OF
those who present q. the time when received his
death wound, and who have been charged with partc
patton In the tragedy the singular prolongaon OF the
life Of the wounded man with bail in his heart the i'm
funeral Pre- esion which MED and follow
ed the body to the grave the fight Of of tbs
charged wit the hen cde tbs the pursuit
and capture Ct the might've undsr circumstance wn;h
induced the strcrg Of his eloquent counsel
the Argument before me- his subsequent prot,asted
trial, ard the puolcstion in the newspapers Of the
city 0. the testimony, which taken with grea!
ninutsness, OF the eloquen. speeches Of the coan-
sci, ard Of the elaborate and abe charge of the
presiding judge. 1t is not at all remarkable that
these ccuu should have led TO the formation and
expression OF plnions By the citizens OF New York esps
cial these Who Witnessed OF the exciting s,enss, or
who read the newspapers. Tina. there is strong and
al tut universal eminent In the city as :, the truth or
talsty OF the charge respects the defendant Baker,
apparent from he statenen Of the jurors who sp
ptaIed before u. the two hundred and thirty eight
who examined, k but sixteen had both formed and
expressed opinions as TO the alleged guilt OF the prisoner
and still retained Them Tbs number Of those passed
the CT strict att N was so nconsiterabe
that they could not be deemed fair representation o.
the intelligence and reliability o. the class which
prizes the jur OF the county The jurors who
a6n tilted may all have been respectable ! had
pers nal AGO uaintance with either OF them and heard
the Dhtr,cRAttolney the argurunt, which, they
not supported by eydsncs cannot be REGARDED
in tie decision Of the moiian which is now IN.
Ger corsderauen. II. however, they were all
reliable mep, tu.h a cLnsumation under the
circumstances, remarkable that similar result
OF any future a,temp. could not be reasonably
ucipatea. Where so fss out Of so large NUMBER Of
jurors at all . mlssble the tight to challenge twenty
pe,enp.oriy which cur Law tengny secure to persons
triec capital offences gives TO tins defendants almost
the entire control in the seleior OF the jury In
where ALL CT the greaer rtion of those summoned
operate rejud;caly but is qp apparen. that
butsn il hunter IS admissible may
very crest embarrassment and seriously obstrrc. the
OF justice In this case wnen the trial before
me but three CHALLENGED persn ptorily, o..
dinary that igot raise inference that admitted
Jurors were peculiarly acceptable to he defendant How
1t in this instance unable 10 say. Bake.
that he unac9usinted with any OF the jurors, and
had no influence over them. RoTevsr, an bound to
eer tie possible and generally probable feet of the
existence and ex.rion OF the privilege Il the uis Of
this action houd prccsed in New York would probably
be necessary, as it wa' before 70 than
panel Where rany t. te sele ,ted nd summoned
considerable number OF days must necessarily inter-
During that Tine, thu luIors already
ami 10 miDgle with their fellow citizens withou. any
restrc ior. The rjupction to hold no convsrsati n
wi others en- The subject of the trial may be beyed by
rscit ncus kut 1t Sometimes happens that
juror who Is not coIsc ntious msn, and
10 such there can tie security Besides there is
nil express tLer pn!ors and a:gue to supp them
in the hearing of the jurors The dsnger Of i'm.
IL uenees from such is very considerable
SIN aware that some similar difficulty may occur If
Jurors are permitted to separate duicg the trial. and
for this that prt pos d to introduce
the pIac,ice trials for murder in TIE city OF Ne.
1oIh several ago, warned by TIE Judges Of
that district that would be- dangerous precedent
Blu. it seemed TO Then, 81 still think that sarcsly
any state Of circumstances viii justify the seciuscn and
col hrenent OF the jurors ano particularly OF the In
firm, Of these extensively engaged In business dur
ing proirsced trial om the tine when they are sworn
until they render their verdict. The practices OF thus
connirg item would operate very Djurously the
mil istat justice the BILE men would re
fuse 70 sit at all trials for murder The dur
rg tie triA so evdeoty Just that the danger resulting
oim /. is alter approaching very TO necessity;
but state Of circumstances which increase the
IL u
judgment is 20 be Timed from the past and i. must be-
il will be difficult u procure any ary And s,il
to obtain BY which fair tis and esctua trial
can lie lad in tie county of New York Although a
sufficient number OF qualified jurors might pos IDLY be
friends Of those who might not ormtd expressed
any opinion 10 tie guilt innocence OF the accused
yet The strong txisrg public sentiment must be known
to them and 1t viii have its influence The jurors may
be charged to disregard it, but they do that with
all their efforts. During experience Of many years
do not remsmber verdict In criminal petition
to sre Dg public sentiment previously entertained and
generally kncw. thai has teen nd II
times is-t Will probably lead to unjust c:. II
there should be divided entim nj, 1t would result In
dissgreentn ard tie TRIAL this prove aborivs Whether
the inability Of the jury first empaI neei in this action to
sgrte upon verdict resulted from tie etTec. CT publ,
opinion pen the minds tf soue OF the cannot
he eertAuIy known. Perhaps 1t may te under the cir.
cumssrces tie ferrabe cause but do pace any
resI CO uptn thai. There Il suic.en. vi bout IL to
warrant The conc usjon which have adopted, tha.
ar, impair al and tectua trial Of this ion cannot
b. had in New York and thai therefore it should take
place in other county The counsel for ths de-
ftnsant Mclaughlin contsLded tba. the action should
not be cent into her county for trial. as IL i.
take hat erection to one II nust to all and
appeared TO prove that his lent could not have
fair trial In tie county Of New York II Is urdousted