The States and Union. [volume] (Ashland, Ohio) 1868-1872, 1871-09-27
Juries in Murder Trials.

1t Is becoming quite oIInculI W Sc
cure juries to try persons charged with
murder, especially in cases where the
crime for which the accused must be
tried created great sensation, and
about which there was much comment
in the papers. In the Mcclellan case,
now on trial at Dayton, men were re-
iected who could not distinguish be-
tween an impression and an opinion.
That is drawing it very fne," since
many persons use the w terms to ex-
press the same thing. We think the
ruting in this case was a little arbitrary,
as it required men to be Intelligent,
and at the same time would reject
them if they were readers of the news
papers and kept themselves informed
of what was passing about them.
In the celebrated trial OF Aaron
Burr, Chief Justice Marshall required
sufficient intelligence on the one hand
to appreciate the situation, and the
other an entire absence of prejudice
for or against the prisoner. In those
times such a rule could readily be en-
forced, and there was little difficulty
in securing competent juries to pass
upon cases involving the lives OF the
prisoners. The lea of communi--
cation then were very limited, and
knowledge OF passing events was con-
fined to the few who occupied posi-
lions which afforded facilities for pro.
curing information through the greatly
DISTRACTED channels then relied upon.
1t is very different now. Every
family, almost, has a newspaper, and
daily papers, full of the details Of
crime, usually colored ina manner to
excite prejudice against suspected par
ties, flood the country. Almost all
persons who can read see these papers,
and !greedily dcvour every thing per
tanning TO crime, particularly that of
murder. We doubt very much the
ability of any man to read an account
of a murder, when the details are
given in the usual style Of the daily
press, without having an impressio' !,
favorable or unfavorable to the C
cused. This may be called an opinion,
or an impression, it matters not which;
the result is the same, provided the
impression is such as to require testi-
mony for its removal. The prisoner
is entitled, clearly, to a jury of twelve
men who can enter upon his trail with
out a bias-whose minds are not cloud
ed by a shadow which will require the
light of testimony for its removal
The point contemplated by the law
and the rules OF courts in fixing the
standard of qualifications for' jurors,
is simply to procure men whose minds
are so free from prejudice, for or
against the accused, that 20 testimony
will be required to remove the bias
There is no doubt about the correct
ness of this principle. The prisoner
is entitled TO a jury who have not
prejudged his case.
But, under the existing order of
things, what can be done? IF men
are to be excluded from the jury-box
because they have read newspaper re-
ports of the crime for which the ac-
cused is to be tried, of course it will
be very difficult to get juries of sufi-
eient intelligence to insure a proper
verdict. And yet, under the present
rule, which makes men incompetent
| 1OI luIOIS bLOSC lIlih nave bSSb a.
iected by published reports to a de
gree which would require evidence to
remove such impressions, opinions OF
convictions, we do not see how courts
can do otherwise than to reject all
persons who have been constant read
ers of daily papers. Some journals are
disposed to regard the rulings OF
courts upon this subject absurd, but a
little reflection will satisfy any person
of the dangers which must attend the
adoption of a different course Il
would seem hard to put a man upon
trial for his life before a jury whose
minds were prejudiced against him tc
su h an extent that testimony would
he required to free them from all en-
barrassment and give the prisoner al
impartial hearing. And yet we dc
not know but this, even, would be
preferable to being third by a jury o
men who do not read newspapers
Toledo Commercial.