The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1886-02-10

AS was said by Judge Scott In ArmSteadS
Case, II Leigh, (Va.) COB, however willing the
juror might be to trust himself, the law Will
"The second bill of exceptions states that
James P. Hawkins, yenireman: being asked
pressed any opinion as to the guilt or inno-
ccnce of the prisoner, answered THAT he had
formed and expressed hypothetical opinion,
but that said opinion could pc changed by ev-
newspare rs and from what he had heard but
could give the prisoner fair and impartial
trial" And thereupon the prisoner prop0und-
now a decided opinion in your mind as to the
guilt or Innocence of the prisoner, without ev-
idence?" TO which the juror answered: II
haven't decide opinion, but rather positive
Juror answered ut would" Whereupon the
Court held the juror to be competent, and acs
cepted him as SUCH"
trine of this Virginia case, In the light OF the
fact that circumstances therein contained tits
this case of Mr.. Uldrich, like lid on pot,
But viii cite H you other auLh9rlies In the
Criminal Law Magazine, from which made
copious extracts In my argument before your
Honor last Friday, find the following doc
ed in the notes by numerous authorities, from
the Supl leme Courts of nearly all the States,
from Massachusetts to Louisiana, from Cali
fornia 10 Florida:
"But the following rule probably has few
exceptions as any: The formation or express
sion by one of an unqualified opinion rs to
the guilt or innocence OF the accused party
renders such person incompetent to sit as Il
juror at the trial Of the party concerning
whom such opinion has been formed. And
another rule of general application is, that
If the proposed juror hos formed an opinion
on the merits Of the case, such as would re-
qure evidence to remove, he also Is incompe-
tent.
1T IFS also the rule, in some of the states, that
If the opinion Is formed from hearing the tes-
timony as given IN court at a former trlal OF
the party, or from reading newspaper reports
of the testimony SO adduced, that he Is In
competent, withstanding that he may he
licve that he could render verdict uninfiu-
enced by his former opinions.
''Same where the opinion Is formed from
hearing the testimony given at the trial of
a co-defendant, and which. the Juror soys
would, without cOuntervalllng evidence, be
the Juror may state that it would not, intlu-
ence him in arriving at Il verdict. 1t is also
cause of challenge that the proposed juror
had sat paev1ous case 20 h s,ried re same nm
tnins, as the case to be tri led contains as thlS
would import that he had formed fixed
opinion. xu.o<, ~, ,,,,,,o,
that the defendant had killed the person for
whose murder he was about to be tried, and
nothing further was shown relative TO ms
competency, 1t was held that challenge for
cause should have been allowed. Same where
O. Juror had read and believed certain state
ments in the papers, and believed a crime had
been committed, and that the persons named
In the papers were guilty of 1t, and that II
the prisoners were the same persons, he mad
an opinion AS to their guilt.
"Where there is Iauspicion OF bias, the court
should itself be satisfied that the juror Is un-
biased it is not enough that the latter Is thus
satisfied. If the court is In doubt, he should
ha II
It's prerOgative to examine the jury does not
prevent the defendants counsel from rerex-
amining them, he is entltleh to do this as a
matter of right.
"Where juror, on his examination. admit
ted that he had formed an opinion aaout the
casc and Of SO decisive nature that II could
not be changed by any circumstantial EVIL
dence whatever, and which opinion he twice
stated might bias the mind. but afterwards,
through cross-intererogatioh by the court and
the states attorney, he iSlcd to contradict his
former statements resarding ms bias; ne may
be properly challenged for the cause"
What need is there for further authority ?
Do these cases not show that Mr. Uldrch Is
not "indifferent," is not competent? Like MIR.
that they could give the defendant fair and
impartial trial but the Supreme Courts OF all
these States unite In saying that such Jurors
are not competent: as rs said IN one case, "the
trust the juror" 1t would seem that when a
Juror has announced on oath that he has
farmed or expressed an opinion 1t Is needless
to ask him any further question. by that iact
he Is rendered incompetent.
This, your Honor, is my position. l have
made no bald assertion. have expressed no
opinion OF my own. l have simply READ 10
your Honor the decisions on this point OF nI'-
merous Supreme Courts, which This Court
need not be ashamed to act upon.
The SOlctor-lf the theory Of the counsel
for the defence were to prevail IL would hard
7 veev se 0 gfs W the
pers has some sort of an opinion. but they
need not thereby be disqualified from sitting
as jurors and rendering verdict according to
the law and evidence. All the Slate requires
is II fair and impartial trial, will read, your
Honor, an extract Of the case Of the State
against DodSon, which Is the law OF this State,
and which is Conclusive. l6 s. c.:
1.-THE next question Is whether the Circuit
Sudge erred in allowing certain jurors TO be
presented TO the prisoners, who. when exam,
ined on their uair dire. stated that they had
formed an opinion In reference to the case
from what they had heard or seen In the
newspapers which, however, would not III
the least influence their minds as Jurors !;
that they were not sensible Of any bias or
prejudice whatever, either for or against the
prisoners, end would be governed by the EVIL
providing that the court shall, upon the mo-
lion Of either party to The cause. examine any
person called as juror upon bis volr dire, ae.
cares that: IT it appears to the court thas he
shall be placed aside AS to the trial or that
cause, and another shall te Called Gen.
Stat. Oh. CXI; S25, p. 523. -
'Ths would seem to vest the power OF de-
terInining the question of fact, as to whether
the Juror wos Indifferent, In the hands OF the
court called upon to try the case, and we 90
not see how this court could undertake 10 re-
view such determination. But even were
sued by the Circuit judge Any other course
would have the effect Of excluding from the
jury box in any case of such mauDltude OF
public interest rs would be likely TO attract
attention, the very class Of persons who would
be best qualified to occupy that position, ior
in cases of that character 1t would he dl1hc9:t
to find persons of ordinary Intelligence VINO
had not received some Impressions IN regard
to q case from what they lad heard or read in
the newspapers. ~
Mr.. Benet-The case in 16 S. G. just read BY
the Solicitor, does not exactly cover this case.
The report Of Judge Hudson shows that tne
Impressions produced on the minds OF the jll-
rors would not, they said, in the least h1fect
them In trying the Dodson case. The Solici.
tors remark that the doctrine contend 1or,
would exclude readers of the newspapers from
the Jury box is not happy. 1 wish your Hon.
or to reflect OH this tact-that the county pal
pers published full accounts of the evidence.
taken ut the two preceding trials, as wei rs
the arguments of counsel and the Judge S
charge. An intelligent man, like Mr.. Uldrich,
who has read these reports, as MI. Oldricn
says he has, and has formed or expressed his
opinion as tD John FerguSOn'S guilt or lnno-
ccnre, can hardly be regarded indifferent"
and we submit to your Honor thai this juror
Is incompetent.
The juror j. E. Uldrich, was again present.
ed. Is not related 10 either prisoner or de-
ceased not sensible Of any bias or prejudice
for or agn inst prisoner court held him conf
potent. Defendant objected.
In order that our readers may understand, d,
in q general way, the questions which the
Court put to each juror who was sworn on
his voir dire, we append one set Of questions.
With few exceptions, each juror was asked
thp same o1pStiOn.