New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-07


with their Juror TO what he ~ able 10 do monialy.
and what ke Ia not able TO do mentally This IL
0 00 n sen0T tbs cosf nor the Counsel acting
AZ professors that science We ascertaning here.
Juror has got an opinion And submit that he has de
cared over and over again he has none And when he
sion we submit that that answer the question
whether he got any impression In this case or aug
opinion IN this case.
Mr. Beach, agree SIR. that this Is NOT school OF
mental philosophy. 1t has rather seemed to be hitherto
a school Of literature and language. Ny learned friend
announces with much confidence and emphasis the
law upon this subject that AN little ntmidated IN
great respect the counsel think, has fallen into tho
which has prevailed before OF mingine the two
classes OF challenge He Is entirely correct In hs stats
ment of the law as applied 70 challenge Tor principal
in It's application to the challenge for the favor II Is
not the same sir except ia degrse thu c,,oog. toba
favor the question whether or not the Juror has gos
Mr. Beach-Certainly; undoubtedly.
Mr. Iracy-Ihe other Is whether he has got any opin
Mr. Beach-Well let us see IL we cannot settle thi,
thing definitely. (Reading) Challenges to the polls
for principal should DO entered the record so
that questions OF arising thereupon may be re.
require But the challenge TO the polls for favor ia OF
eqeetam' but Of an Inferior degree. The gen
efai rule OF law is that the juror should
he is not so this may be made me subject Of cha
enge either principal or to the favor according 10 ths
causes favor, l. said by Lord Coke, are inluite
of law imply disqualifyng bias IL must be left 70 the
conscience and discretion Of the triers upon hearing
or not favorable. Tae question for tho triers Is
whether the juror f. as he assuredy should be- alto
gether Indifferent ana II they fad he Is not Is their
duty to reject him II the prosecutor OF an indictment
has been lately entertained at the mouse 81 Juror
is a follOwseryant with the party sued goes 10 tIe
favor Actions pending between unS Js au o t nc
venge, SANDER assault aud battery ana inc IEe are
causes principal challenge, otherwise tDey are but 10
| he "A
the favor and does the fact that the Juror IL Indebted
the party" &C.. An impression thit tne pflsolei -
guilty or hypothetical opinion adverse to him. though
not a ground OF principal challenge, may DO gwen IN
and it is then for the trers to de.
termine whether the Juror IS man rent OF not
Speaking OF the charge OF the court to the rler WhcI
material 10 submit, tine opinion says Besides,
the tendency OF such cIarSe mus; o. 10 & trc t
It virtually places them In tue position OF persons Ell
derined by the court 1t should be lost slght
OF that trers 10 ascertain the Ieal 5tte vi TUG
Impartial aud Indifferent between the ,paities'
without favor or bias to either, ee. bu.
which we entertain IN regard TO the Challenge To the
favor Now, am endelyOrlng TO show by TINS JIrot
aeP1 one TSy 70 nnenSe his action as Juror that
sort OF impression which produces what the law calls
bias tendency, an inclination 70 1Ae one Sidg or aHe
the entire Indifference with which Juror
should take his seat IN tho panel ana
learned friend, and deny under the evidence we nave
had in this courtroom that is impossible for inte
cant men 10 have lived In the City Brooklyn without
receiving that character Of impression winch "0ud d
| Mr.. Pracy-WhO have read the statements
Mr. Beach-why. Sir. have a gentleman OF very
great intelligence and high respectaDhity Judge nov
seated upon panel VINO stated to TINS Court ana the
counsel that he mad read the articles published upon
this subject, and that he yet was Tree from any impress
sion In regard the merits OF this action IL Is pos.
bls for men to read contradictory statements IN regard
to a subject with which they are entirely uhAcqnalnted
without receiving any impression In regard 70 tne truth
| iuVo
nnced aud Indifferent regarding these publications. ana
pare in their Character entitled to efficient influence
upon the Judgment Of intelligent men, Ana IL IS not
difficult find such jurors, Sir although there may DO
many others who from other causes, from associations
relations the one party or TO the other or through
other considerations have read these communications
with lfferent spirit with the spirit OF partisan
with spirit OF prejudice and may have formed sucn
impressions such opinions as would radically influence
their jurymen And how is THIS or any other.
Impression through the intelligent exercise of his uhg
men upon evidence submitted to it, In favor OF the
To say with what readiness he dvest his mind OF
that impression 1t is sufficient that he has IL, Sir fna
10 MS mind aud 1t must influence his Judgment. Aud
the idea that impression of that KIND can be diyesed
from the mind by the mere exercise OIL wi or OF mem
ory or forgetfuness Is aOsurdity. Ia the OF
the Juror Taylor. evidence was given tending 70 show
that he had decided impressions against the prls-
| oner, and pretty strong belief OF his quit
And IN the case. Of Beach, the evidence. though
less decisive OF the character, ETC." Then
legal positions were laid down by the court which have
already been stated WI III, Fe4u tne sli' Oeeal,e tIsy
The learned counsel: Tho Court charged the riers In
the resort to the by the prisoners counsel IL
| the nature OF appeal from the opinion OF the
court on the facts and o., that Ina. hypothsu
| disqualify him." The Court say then: "As TO the
legal positions laid down by the court aud when have
already been stated. 1t seems to me they cannot be
intaned. I would not be understood to hold that
hypothetical opinion necessarily dsqualInes juror
aud it clearly does not If such It's effect 1t wOue
uphold challenge for principal cause, when IL WIZ
NOT. Still 1t s some evidence OF bias, aud upon
| trlers in their discretion may set juror aside
Now, Sir, this ge G perhaps . not pro
from time to time put him, has given very discard
ant and conflicting accounts OF the state Of his mind o.
I think 1 may appeal TO your Honors recollection OF
what tue Juror has said without repeating upon thai
! subject. l pursuing this examination for Tue
purpose OF asceriantng. If can, and satisfying
tue Court, what Is the character and the eh
man Is able to say that with an impression upon the
question OF guilt OF innocence he YET IN tne jury
box exercise his judgment luIpartially uUOn the evil
dence. II be possible, Dir; do not deny IL. am
not professor my friend here suggests, OF mental
| philosophy. but am asking some very plain, aud.
think, direct questions to ascertain that point ana
am proceeding further than the Court shall seem 10 re-
| gard proper why, certainly shall discontinue It.
Judge Neison-I think you had right to examine, to
ascertain the cond Of tins jurors mind and TO as,
certain precisely the character OF that impression
IT, whether il would leave bin entirely indir rent Ok
not between the parties. Any examination tending "
! Mr.. Beach-Mr. Juryman, l understand you to SAP
| now that, having this impression of which you nav
spoken. It would accompany you Into the DO1 aei
you selected juryman; and ask you by whAi
effort OF mind will you think YOU could dlyess your.
| thoroughly impartial; certainly.
| @. You would make effort to be impartial A.
don't think should have TO make any effort at all " u9
! 50 think that could be so without an effort.
O. That Is, do you think that Il you have an impress
in regard TO the degree OF the guilt or innocence
| Mr. Beecher that you are not impartial upon tm
question:
Mr. Evart-we object to the question il your H fSa
Is Is not IN his mind; not concerning the ABSTRACT