Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-12-12
THE STAR ROUTE TRIAL.
SELECTING A JURY
SCENES IN COURT TO- DAY.
MORE DISCUSSION OF THE CHAL
LENGE QUESTION.

taltolLin anu accepted IN place OF MT. ROBERT =
| Chew, who was excused from the panel by Judge
Wylie yesterday.
| The counsel then proceeded to the discussion OF
| the questions pending when the court adjourned
last evening-the point having been raised by the
defense that they had right to interrosate jurors
In order to secure foundation for challenge for
] cause.
JUDGE wYL1E ON THE RIGHTS OF COUNSEL IN Ex-
AIMING JURORS.
Judge Wylie remarked that when Juror was
examined by the court, the court did not allow the
counsel to exercise that right. II counsel desired
to question a juror they could obtain that privi-
lege by challenging the juror and stating the
grounds OF the challenge.
MIR. INGERsoLL ON PEREMPToRy CHALLENGES.
Mr.. Ingersoll said he had found in the English
cases that the government not only, but the de-
fendant also. had right to have Juror to stand
| aside. II. when they got through with panel a
| jury had not been formed, the juror recalled
and examined. Now he understood that the privi-
lege OF peremptory challenges took the place OF
that OF having jurors to stand aside. Now he
understood the court that If he wanted to cha.-
lenge for cause he must challenge before nterro-
eating; that is, challenge before he knew whether
there was cause or not. He would not know but
DEFENDANTS He said that 1t was the right of the
counsel on both sides to form a jury without the
assistance OF the court II counsel for both sides
agreed they could accept twelve prejudiced Jurors
and the court could not prevent it,
Mr. MERRICK SAID
that there was no need for him to say that the
government did not desire prejudiced jurors. He
referred to a case decided by Judge Wylie-and
the decision having been sustained by the Court
In General Term-in which the judge
took the same position as in this case.
FURTHER ARGUMENTS.
MI Henkle argued that authorities all main
tained that when a challenge for cause or favor
was interposed the party challenging could not
only tnterrogate the juror, but was privileged to
call witnesses to contradict any statement made
by the juror
Mr.. Ingersol urged again his right as counsel to
interrogate jurors in order to lay the foundation
for challenge
'rll meet that point when it arises" said Judge
Wylie.
''We'l let 1t arise. then, On the first man." said
The court said he did not propose to re-eyamine
jurors at all as TO favor. He would leave that mat
tei 10 the discretion OF counsel in the OF their
privilege OF challenge.
JUDGE WYLIE STATES AGAIN HIS DECISION AS TO
CHALLENGES.
Mr. DaV!dge having stated that he had not
clear apprehension OF how they now stood regard
Ing challenges, Judge Wylie again announced his
opinion. II the challenge, he said, were princi-
pal challenge, as to the legal qualifications of
juror. 1t was necessary that the counsel present.
Ing the challenge should charge the specific dis
qualification, and he was bound to maintain the
challenge. The question, however, before the
court was as to challenge for favOr-a challenge
affecting the conduct OF the juror the character or
MS opinions, or matters OF that sort He cited
for favor must be distinctly stated, else the court
could disregard the challenge altogether. The ex-
strained by the court within proper limits. No
court ought, In his judgment, to allow to counsel
remarks WE'RE made by eNr Mr Wson Juror in which he
seemed to claim an unlimited latitude.
Mr.. Wilson said he had stated in a general way
the matters In relation to which he wished to in
terrogate the juror. OF course he knew that the
questions he propounded were subject to super
vision by the court
Judge Wylie said that If counsel for defense in
Sit upon their right OF interrogating the juror,
they must make their own challenge The court
would allow them to puG questions, On condition
that they first state their challenge.
AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULING OF THE COURT.
Mr.. Davidge noted an exception to the ruling of
the court as to the right OF the court to try cha
lenge.
Judge Wylie said that the defense would regard
what was done yesterday by the court as though
1t were not done, and could make their challenge
and examine Mr. Franklin Barrett who was the
first juror called for examination last evening
and, pending whose examination, the questions
argued this morning arose.
MIR. BARRETTs STATUS.
Mr.. Barrett was then again called.
Mr.. 1ngersoll insisted that the prosecution must
first accept or reject the juror.
Judge Wylie said that that was not the practise
here. The juror belonged to the regular panel.
and his qualifications were supposed to be COM
plete unless he was challenged.
MIR. Merrlck said that whichever side moved
1rst should move first respecting his power to
challenge for cause, and then the other side
moved In tbe same respect Then the first side
moved In respect Of peremptory challenge and
after that the other side moved in respect Of re-
rcmptory challenge: The object was not to catch
either side, but to have a fair and impartial ex-
fh1f SnYnr
move first. 1t was an advantage to the defendant
that he should move first, and then hand the juror
Of this proposition, to the practice in this court
ana in the courts in Maryland.
MI Ingersoll remarked, In opposing Mr.. Mer-
rick's view, that he did not know what the prac-
tice in this District was He did not know any
body who did: Those who pretended to have srISh
knowledge changed their opinions all the Time
He never heard the doctrine that defendant,
must take the initiative and tender tie juror TO
the government
JUDGE wYLIE's NOTICE TO COUNSEL
About half-past IL o'clock, after the arsu-
ment had been taken up by several of
the counsel Judge Wylie said that he would be
obliged to limit the discussion of these incidental
questions hereafter to two On each side, else the
trial would never be ended; the trial must go on.
He said that the theory OF jury was that they
were impartially selected. good and true men,
without inclination to favor one side or the other
That was the presumption OF the law. They
In by the government The jury was here
selected according to the forms Of the law, abso-
lutely competent In all respects That was their
presumed position in court II either party was
dissatisfied with one more OF the Jurors. he
must express his dissatisfaction and the reason
for 1t. II he did not make his challenge the pre-
sumption OF the law would prevail and the Juror
would be sworn. The party who commenced his
challenges must go through with all his challenges
before the other side would be called upon. He
said there was no rule on the subject as to which
side was obliged first to accept or reject Juror
II nobody began tue business OF challenging then
the juror would be sworn.
Mr.. INGERSOIL INSISTED
upon knowing whether after the government had
indicated acceptance by remaining SILENT and the
defendant has endeavored to challenge for cause.
the government can finally have the right of per-
emptbry challenge.
Judge Wylie said that that question would be
decided when it arose.
Mr.. Merrtck proposed that the government and
defense should alternate as to which side Should
take the Initiative.
MR. NGERsOLL NOTES AN EXCEPTION.
Mr.. IngersOll said that that propositlon wa a
fairer than the law as decided by the court. but
was not as fair as he believed the law really was
He noted an exception to the courts ruling. and
thereupon Mr. Merrick withdrew his proposition.
Mr.. Barrett was again called.