Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-12-22
HAMPTON's DIRTY WORK
A Jury Impaneled and Sworn to Try
Him for Conspiracy.
Mrs, Fields Takes the Stand and
Swears the Defendant Paid
Her 800.
Brig and His Pals Have Private
Room in the AssignatiOn House.

The Ham pton conspiracy case was
called at 10 o'clock this morning in the
Third District Court, and Judge Hoge, In
behalf of the defendant, challenged the
jurors sworn to decide the case. on the
grounds that Marshal E. A. Ireland was
preiudiced and biased in selecting as
Jurors men from the Gentle element
rather than the Mormon, who would act
more favorably for the prosecution than
for the defense. Mr.. Varian denied the
challenge, and was sustained by the
Court.
Mr.. Sheeks cited several statutes in
support of the challenge on the plea that
the jurors to be impartial should be sum-
moned from both sides.
Mr.. Varian replied that the question
was a new one, and that he desired to
suggest that the laws were once more
benefcient than are now provided to
govern the forming of jury. For rea-
sons, most all of the American States
have set aside the old style of impaneling
jury. The common law of this Terri
tory makes no provision for such chal-
lenge as this, and the legislators contem-
plated no such state of affairs as being
Objectionable to the impaneling of jury.
The Marshal is acting under his oath of
office, and certainly had no object in
summoning non-Mormons when choosing
men of individual and impartial action in
their lives within this city. There is no
more ground here for challenge than as
though Baptists, Methodists or any other
sectarian believer had been omitted in
the selection
Judge Hoge followed with an argument
endeavoring to show that the Marshal
went out on the street and selected Gen
tiles to try this particular case. The
speaker inferred that the Marshal had
summoned men who were in favor of the
prosecution and were prejudiced and BIZ
ased against the defendant. A parallel
case would be for the Sheriff to go out on
the streets and summon full Mormon
jury to try a Presbyterian. The prose-
cution would raise an objection immedi-
ately.
The Court reviewed the grounds on
which the defense based their challenge,
and spoke of the insufficiency of the
organic act in prescribing for the selection
of jury. Under all these circumstances,
an open venire is required, as has been
resorted to. the Marshal's beliefs about
religious matters can hardly be drawn in
here. There is one fact here, however,
where the Marshal is charged with select
ing men favorable to the prosecution.
United States Marshal Ireland was
called by the defense and sworn to testify.
Mr. Sheeks-Mr. Ireland, you are the
United States Marshal of Utah, are you
not?
Ayes, sir.
Odd you have anything to do with
naming the jurors?
Ayes, sir.
Odd you have any bias or preju-
dice in helping to make out the list?
Objected to by the prosecution, and
sustained.
Odd you know that any of the iu-
rors selected belonged to the Mormon
Church?
Objected to-
Q.-Had you any feeling against Mr..
Hampton?
A.-No, sir.
men knowing they were opposed religi-
ously and politically to Mr. Hampton?
Objected to.
Q.-You say you had no intention in
this case OF selecting men more favorable
to the prosecution than the defense?
Ayes, sir
Q.-How is it, then. that you selected
men all of whom are anti-Mormon
Al never consider what orthodox q
man may profess in summoning him, but
select men of impartial mind. as in
structed by the Court.
Odd it enter into your mind in Sc
lecting these jurors that they belonged to
one or the other of the two conflicting
elements?
Al rather think it did.
Odd you not think that the men
You chose would be inclined to favor the
prosecution, and select them with that |
idea?
A. / selected class of men had rea-
son to believe would be impartial, and |
took no pains to select Mormons, as I |
thought they would not act unbiased. 1 |
have talked with none of the jurors sum-
moned, and have no recollection of talk
ing with any of them about this case; |
have no desire to have the defendant con- |
victed unless guilty; talked with one |
of the witnesses.
Mr.. Varian-Mr. Ireland, is it not true |
that you took considerable time and pains |
to select men you felt sure were true
jurors?
Ayes, sir. Have no recollection of
talking over this case with any one. The
officers connected with my office served
the list. Took care to get impartial men,
in view of the peculiar state of affairs /
existing here in regard to this class of
cases.
Mr.. Varian submitted the challenge
and the Court overruled it in view of no
partiality being shown on the part of the
officers and prosecution.
The defense took exceptions to the
ruling.
S. c. Ewing was the first Juror ex-
amined by Judge Hoge for the defense,
and stated that he had talked, read and
heard some little about the Brig. Hamp-
on conspiracy case, but could render an
verdict from the evidence.
Challenged.
opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the
WIFI proper eNluence COulQ
render an impartial verdict. Passed by
he prosecution.
The Court read the statute governing
he challenging of juror, and stated
hat in view of what the juror had said
If his relations with the defendant and
his meagre knowledge of the case, the
Court was of the opinion that Mr.. Ewing
vas competent, and the challenge was
,verruled.
Charles w. Watson had formed an
opinion from mere r1mors. Challenged
'y the defense on implied bias.