Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-12-22
HAMPTON'S DIRTY WORK
A Jury Impnneled and Sworn to Try
Him for Conspiracy.
Mrs. Fields Takes the Stand and
Swears the Defendant Paid
Her $500.
Brig and His Pals Have Private
Room I'm the Asslgnatlon House.


jurors sworn to decide the case, ON the
grounds that Marshal L. A. Ireland was
Drejudiced and biased in selecting as
Jurors men from the Gentle element
rather than the Mormon, who would act
more favorably for the prosecution than
or 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
than are now provided to
govern the forming OF jury. For rea-
have set aside the old style of impaneling
q jury. The common law of this Terri
tory makes no provision for such a chal-
lenge as this, and the legislators contem-
plated no such state of affairs rs being
to the impaneling OF a jury.
The Marshal is acting under his oath of
ohiCCt anu lO oDJCCt
summoning non-Mormons when choosing
men of individual and impartial action in
their lives within this city. There is no
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
MO t1,n OF nd ga1a,tnl
tiles to try this particular case. The
summoned men who were in favor OF the
prosecution and were prejudiced and bi.
ased against the defendant A parallel
the streets and summon full Mormon
cution would raise an objection immedi-
ately
The Court reviewed the grounds on
which the defense based their challenge,
and spoke of the insufficency 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,
WiiViO WIG 10 CllulRCu Will
ing men favorable to the prosecution.
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.
Q.-Did 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 ju-
rors selected belonged to the Mormon
Church?
Objected to.
Q.-Had you any feeling against Mr..
Hampton?
A.--No, sir.
Odd you not make up that list OF
men knowing they were opposed religi-
ously and politically to Mr.. Hampton?
Objected to.
this case OF selecting men more favorable
to the prosecution than the defense?
Ayes, sir
INV ID tiiChs tiat YOU Btlttlttl
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
Letting 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
thought they would not act unbiased. /
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
to select men you felt sure were true
jurors?
Ayes, sir. Have no recollection OF
canning oNCi tilib CuSt Will ully one. lnc
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 il in view of nc
partiality being shown on the part of the
officers and prosecution.
Tho HafanCa a.
ruling.
S. g. 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.
ton conspiracy case, but could render an
impartial verdict from the evidence.
Challenged.
Cross-examined-I have no unqualified
opinion as to the guilt or innocence OF the
defendant. With proper evidence could
render an impartial verdict. Passed by
the prosecution.
The Court. read the statute governing
the challenging OF Juror, and stated
that In view OF what the juror had said
OF his relations with the defendant and
his meagre knowledge OF the case, the
Court was OF the opinion that Mr.. Ewing
was competent, and the challenge was
overruled.
Charles w. Watson had formed an
opinion from mere rumors. Challenged
by the defense on implied bias.
Cross-examined-Thought he could dis
card from his mind the opinion he had
If proof sufficient was brought to prove
his error.
The Court put few questions, and be.
liieving the witness Incompetent, he was
discharged.
The afternoon session OF the District
Court began with the further examina-
ton of jurors for the Hampton trial.
Every witness questioned had heard n,