The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1866-01-20
The Cecil Whig.
ELKTON, JANUARY 70, 1866.
disqualification of Jurors.

The old rnle of law that declares mar
disqualified from acting as juror in case
in which he has "formed or expressed ar
opinion in regard to the guilt or innocence
of the person on trial, is likely, in yer,
short time, to be laid away among the rub
bish of the past. Senator Doolitte has in
PRODUCED bill into the United States Sen
ate to repeal the rule so far as it is applca
Bile to cases in the United States Court anG
if it becomes a law, as there is no doubt il
will, the custom Of asking juror if he has
formed or expressed an opinion" will very
soon fall into general desuetude. And, in 9
short time, the wonder will be how it should
so long have remained in vogue.
The province Of juror is to listen to the
evidence adduccd in the case before hand
to weigh it carefully, and then to decide in
| accordance with it and 1t seems something
| like an insult to the intelligence of a man to
ask him if he has formed or expressed such
an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the
person on trial, as to disqualify him from de.
! Gliding upon the evidence submitted to him.
Upon what has he formed his opinion p
Upon the reports he has already heard OF
the case. or upon his own preiudices. II
the former he certainly can modify or change
his opinion when he hears new, additional
or contradictory reports; and if the latter
he is not qualified to decide in any contro-
versy between man and man.
In this progressive age, when everything
gets into the newspapers, it is almost an i'm
possibility to prevent Il man of ordinary in
teligence from reading an account of every
crime tat is committed, and of forming an
opinion of the guilt or innocence of the
criminal. But he forms it from what he has
read or heard Of the affair, and when called
into the jury box to decide upon the guilt or
innocence of a person he has never seen be-
fore, and knows nothing of, in any shape or
form, except that he is charged with the
commission of q crime, the presumption of
law that he is disqualified by an opinion
formed from having heard only one side of
of the case, or only part of the evidence,
is virtual presumption that he is very
narrow minded, prejudiced man, or q very
ignorant one.
There is scarcely one man in hundred.
but what reads an account of every crime
committed in his county, and from that ac-
count forms an opinion of the gull: or inno-
cence of the perpetrator thereof. Is he for
that reason prevented from changing his
opinion in any shape or form? Or is he de.
barred forever from altering it in whole or
in part upon a new statement of facts? The
whole thing resolves itself into this simple
propositions:
The one man in neighborhood, county
or State, who has never read or heard of a
murder, robbery or other crime that has been
committed, is the only proper person to sit
as a juror upon the trial of the person charged
with the ofense, while the nnety-nine, who
have read Or heard of it, are disqualified. -
1t strikes us that the only result of such
rule is to place the most ignorant men in
the most responsible positions known to hui
man government, that is, in the position of
jurors to decide upon the guilt or innocence
Of fellow being. 1t is strange that such
an absurd rule has not long since been re.
pealed. We hope Senator Doolittle's bill
will speedily become law.