Daily Los Angeles herald., 1881-05-19
the jury Law.

the Jury Law.
The letter and spirit Of the law OF
this State In relation to jurles
seems to be grossly misunderstood
by . large portion Of the people
and press, and even by Mr.. Nc
Graw in his able article in the
May number of the Californian on
the jury system. Fit we're not 90,
he would not relate, as Illustrative
Of . weak point, the anecdote OF a
Juror waiting to be examined as to
his qualifications, asking his neigh
Dor "What is this case? Tell me
something about 1t quick" and be.
ing excused on account of bis
knowledge thus hurriedly gained.
A. 10 we'll known. juries were orig
inally composed Of people OF the
vicinage who knew most about the
matter to be tried. In course OF
time, juries became composed OF
persons who not only knew least
about the matter in hand. but
least about everything. In our
State, however, there has been
legislative reaction upon this SUBJ
jsct, and our Penal Code expressly
declares:
"No person shall be disqualified
"as . juror by reason OF having
'sformed or expressed an opinion
"upon the matter or cause to be
"submitted to such jury founded
"upon public rumor, statements in
"public journals, or common noto-
"risty, provided 1t appear to the
"Court upon his declaration, under
"oath or otherwise, that he can
''and will, Notwithstanding such
''an opinion, act impartlally and
''fsirly upon the matters to be sub
emitted to him."
The Judge Of the lower court try
ing the case is the exclusive judge
Of the competency of the juror un-
der the section quoted from, above,
and the Supreme Court has held,
In several cases, that his ruling
upon such competency Is conclu-
sive and not the subject of appeal,
unless such lower court committed
error In admitting or rejecting evi.
dence es TO ths jurors state OF
mind.
The Supreme Court OF this State
says, in People vs.. Gotta, 49th Cal
ifornia Reports, page 16o:
"The fact that juror has formed
'a fixed and positive opinion as to
"the question Of defendants guilt
"or innocence does not constitute q
''cause of challenge for implied
"bias under Section 1914 Of the
"Code az amended. Assuming 1t
"to have been sufficient specifca-
'tion Of q challenge for actual bias
"to say that the juror had such bias
''as could disqualify him, the Issue
"sf fact as to whether the juror
twas or was not in such condition
"of mind as would prevent him
"from acting with entire imparti-
"ality and without prejudice to the
'substantial rights Of the defend.
"ant, was tried by the District
"Court, and Its judgment upon that
tissue was final, as no exception
twas taken to any ruling of the
"Court in admitting or rejecting
''svidence."
Again, In People VS.. Vasquez,
4sth Cal. Reports, page 562, the
same Court says:
"Hunter, who was examined
"touching his qualifications as q
'juror, was challenged for actual
"bias, and the challenge was dis
"allowed. The decision of the
"question of fact raised by the
''ehallenge 10 final and is not sub.
''jsct TO review on appeal"
The ruling of Superior Judge
upon the question of the oomps-
tency Of q particular juror is large.
ly Influenced by the knowledge of
the reputation or character Of the
individual, gained by q residence
In the same community. Men are
positive or vacillating in their ex.
pressions, according to tempera.
mont. One person will answer
positively and unhesitatingly to q
question upon which bis mind ID
perhaps in more or less doubt
while another will interject world
Of doubt In the most com m mopplac;
answer. 1t is in view OF this, ant
the added fact Of having the m an
nsr and appearance Of the juror be
fore him, that the Supreme Cour
has left the matter entirely will
the discretion Of the Judge of tn,
lower Court.
Our jury law, II we'll interprete,
and executed, avoids many Of th'
objections that are commonl,
made to the Jury system.