Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1874-02-05
QUALIFICATIONS OF JURORS--AD-
MISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY.

In the case OF the Brothertons, Oh ap-
peal TO the Supreme Court of Califor-
MIA, Chief Justice Wallace delivered the
opinion of the Court, which the other
Justices concurred. Concerning the
qualifications of Jurors we quote from
the decision:
The first point made is that the ohal-
lenge in.erposed by the prisoners to the
juror Hicks was improperly overruled.
The ground of the challenge was, that he
had formed an unqualified opinion as
TO the guilt of the prisoners. 1t Is un-
necessary to 90 over the details OF the
examination of Hicks and his answers
made to the numerous questions put to
him upon the point involved IL the chal-
lenge. Some of his answers as to the
nature of the impressions he had formed
are not altogether consistent with some
others given by him. But we have had
occasion heretofore in other cases to re-
mark upon the apparently almost una
voidable inaccuracies usually observa-
BILE in the answers made upon such ex-
aminations, produced, in most instances,
however, by the leading forms of the
questions habitually put by counsel on
the one side and the other, by which the
juror is usually led, incsutiously, to con-
tradict himself by not carefully observ-
ing the nice shades and differences sug-
gested, or oftener concealed, in the ques-
tions themselves, as to the actua! state
of mind OF the juror or the nature and
character OF the opinion or impression
he may have formed. This case does
not seem to be of an exceptional charac-
ter in that respect. The burden of es-
tablishing the incompetency OF Juror IS.
however, upon the prisoners. He Is
presumed to be competent until his in
competency is afiirmatiyely established.
1t is not ordinarily enough, therefore, to
support an exception taken to the action
of the court below III overriding n chal-
lenge made on this ground that con-
iict frequently more apparent than real,
is developed upon the point by the ex-
animation. Much weight under such
circumstances is rightfuliy to be attribu-
ted te the views OF the court below in
disposing of the challengs, the de-
meanor and manner of the juror
under examination, hardly less than the
mere expressions in which his an
swers are couched, constitute an import
ant element in the Judgment to be ar
rived at upon the point OF his comps-
tency or lncompetency by reason OF an
opinion formed, or an impression Gre
ated upon his mind. We, Of course, can
have no opportunity here to observe the
demeanor or manner Of the juror nor,
by that means, to form the estimate Of
his character as being fairminded man,
or otherwise, which is afforded to the
court below, and We think that under
such circumstances we ought not ord-
narily to disturb the conclusion arrived
at below upon the point, but that rule
usually applied where the evidence is
conflicting upon a contested fact ought
to apply in such case. We have looked
into the bill OF exceptions taken to the
denial OF the challenge interposed in this
case, and are of opinion that Mr., Hicks
was not sufficiently shown to have formed
an unqualified opinion as to the guilt of
the prisoners, and that the challenge for
implied bias on that ground must be con-
considered to have been correctly denied.
Passing over the second and third
points, we quote the following:
1t is next insisted that there was error
in admitting proof of what Francis Wood
had testified to at the former trial of the
prisoners upon this indictment-Wood
having in the meantime deceased. The
testimony thus produced was to certain
matters happening at the Brooklyn Ho-
tel. What matters these were and
whether they were material or not the
record is silent. 1t must be presumed
therefore, in support of the judgment be-
low, that they were of no materi-
atty in the case and worked nc
injury to the substantial rights OF
the prisoner at the trial. But irrespective
of this it is settled here that
the prosecution onithe second trial Of the
prisoners for the crime had a right tc
prove what the deceased witness testified
to on the former trial. people VS.. Muir
ply, Oct. Term. 1921
The ruling of the District Court deny
ing the motion for new trial was af
firmed.