Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1878-03-12

vol. 8, p. 1923, the following reasons are
given why afidavits Of jurors to impeach
their verdict should not be received: LIST.
Bee luse they would tend to defeat their own
solemn acts under oath. End. Because their
admission would open a door to tamptr with
jurymen after they had given their verdict.
3rd. Because they would be the means, IN
the hands of q dissatisfied juror, to destroy
q verdict at any time af.er he had assented
to it.
In Nash's pleading and practice, vol. 9,
page 1912, the following language is used
THE afidayits Of jurors may be received to
impeach the conduct of other persons, like
a party; but not to show misconduct on
their own part, or that Of their fellow jurors.
Nor will the affidavit of third persons, as to
what they heard jurors cay after being dis
charged, be admitted"
In Wisconsin, in a case in which Dixon,
c. j., gave the opinion of the supreme court
in 1864, it was held that "the afidavits Of
jurors to their own misconduct cannot be
received for the purpose Of impeaching their
verdict" Quoting l Ora. & Wat. on New
Trials, Ill, and cases cited. See Edmister Y.
Garrison, Is Wis, 632. Also Shaw v. Fisk,
q Wis, 369.
The supreme court Of Minnesota, in three
cases, has excluded such afidavits. St.
Martin '. Desnoyer, l Mimi, l59; Knowl-
ton v. Mcmahon. Is Mimi, $50; The State
v. Stokely, Is Mimi, 2S2.
In The State v. Underwood, 81 Mo-, 40
asa, it is held that "the rule is perfectly
settled, that Jurors speak through their YER
dict, and they canno be allowed to violate
Partially or misconduct that transpired
there, nor speak Of the motives which in.
duced or operated to produce the verdict.
But they may testify in support Of their
verdict" etc.
This question was deliberately considered,
and the leading authorities collated and re-
viewed in Woodward '. Leavitt, 10Y Mass,
453, and the doctrine was declared to be as
above stated.
In Vermont the rule is that "the affidavit
of a juror shall not be received to prove
what passed during the investigation Of the
cause in the jury room" This rule has
been applied there to exclude proof of state
ments Of facts made by jurors to their fell
lows. Robbins Y. Windover, 2Tyler's Rep.
II. 1t has also been applied there to ex-
clude evidence of a mistake in point of law,
the court in the latter case declaring that
the oftener it is argued they are more con-
frmed in the correctness Of former decisions
that the afidavits of jurors cannot be read
to "disclose the deliberations of the Jury
room" Harris '. Huntingdon, 2Tyler, 147.
In The State va1E reeman, 5 Conn, 34S,
it was held that "ajuror is an lnadmisslble
witness to prove the misconduct of his fel-
0 w,jurors, for the purpose OF lmpeaching
their verdict,"-HosEer, G. j., saying that
"the opinion of almost the whole legal
world is adverse to the reception of the tes.
timony in question, and, in my opinion, on
in iuvincible foundations. See also Meade
vs.. Smith, 10 Conn.,, 346.
The supreme court Of Texas, in 1865, in
johnson vs.. The State, for murder, % Tex.
r., p. 769, rejected the affidavit of three of
the jurymen, saying that mo case has yet
occurred in which such af1davits have been
tolerated in the courts of this state for the
purpose Of impeaching q verdict. And
when we consider the wide door which
would thereby opened for improper practi.
ces. we would hesitate long, and feel our
selves constrained by imperative necessity
for accomplishing the ends Of justice, be-
fore we could give our sanction to such .
practice. Although a few isolated cases
may be found in which such afidavits have
been received, the better practice seems to
have been established in most If not all the
states except Tennessee. The question has
been before this court heretofore, on more
than one occasion. snd it has been uniform.
ly decided adversely to the appellant"
So, too, with the supreme court Of New
Jersey, QS72) in Hutchinson vs.. Oil Co., Z
Vroom "a, in which that court held that "al-
though there are many cases to the contrary, |
the great weight of authority in this country
and in England appears TO support the doc. |
trine that the testimony of jurors to impeach
their own verdicts should be excluded, on
grounds of public policy"
So likewise, the supreme court of Oregon,
IN 3rd Or. Rep, 100, used the following
language: The affidavit of the juror is in-
to impeach the verdict, or even
to shpw & mistake 10 making up The yer.
dict Nor can it BE- received to show what
passed in the Jury room"
In The State vs. Stewart, 0 Nevada, 121,
1914 there was q conviction of the crime
Of murder in the first degree, and in support,
Of the motion for a new trial, the affidavit
Of one Collins, q juror. was presented
HawIey, j., in p%ronouncing the opinion Of
the court, said: THE affidavit of Collins
presents no question worthy of %considera.
ton. No juror should ever be al
10 impeach the verdict
Of the jury by testifying
70 his orn misconduct, or by asserting bis
ignorance of the Law. These principles are
now too well settled to require discussion,
citation of authorities"
In Iudiana. according TO Bicknell's Crimi-
nal Practice edition OF 1860, such afidavits
are excluded by that supreme court SIT
must be remembered" says that writer,
23S, shat the misconduct of the jury
be shown by the affidavit off jury.
man, IS Ind. 947; IA Ind. 450; IL Ind. 1868
and no statement Of a iarymsD, verbal or
written, can be received 10 prove such mis-.
conduct. 10 Ind. 500. But misconduct Of
the jury may be shown by the affidavit Of
their bailiff. s Bid. 49,"
So in Illinois, In Martin v. Ehrenfels,
"A Ill, 1877. 1t was held that the affidavit
Df a juror is not TO be received 10 impeach
he conduct Of the panel. SAID Cation G.
I'VE will first consider the afidavits Of
he Jurors The oaly ter dcncy Of these
sff5aviis Is to itnpeach the conduct OF the
Jury. For this purpose The affidavit Of
Juror cannot be received" Ses slso AM