New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-09-17
TWO JURORS IN THE BOX.
SUBJECT TO PEREAIPToRY CHALLENGE AT ANY
TINE-NEw PHASES OF HUMAN NATURE
In TILE CRONIN CASE.

IN TILE CRONIN CASE.
Chicago. Sept 10 (SpcciaD.-The hrst day VI '"o
fourth week of the Cronin trial closed without any
prospect of a jury 1t is true two men, PEARSON anu
Culver are still in the box and have Deeh ."o ~
ree times successfully rendered each side by the
other but the ruling Of the court that this 'o"''
does not bar either side from peremptory cnahenso
makes these prospective jurors subject to dismissal
at any moment. ,,,
LAWYER Forrest in behalf Of Dan" Coughllh'
challenged the special venire OF jurymen on inc
ground that the regular panel had not yet Deen eA
hausted Messrs. Donahoe and Foster also 1orlnahS
made the same motion in behalf OF their clients
o'sulvan, Kunze and Beggs. 1t was o'crr"i00 anu
tho customary exception TAKEN
Some interesting matters were developed IN 'he
examination of Cyrus NJ. Davis lie was asked inc
question Have you conscientious scrIples against
the death penalty ?" and answered: Il nave on
crcumstantial evidence" The States Attorney chal
Ienged him for cause Mr.. Forrest for the uelehce
objected
"The question is," said the Court, If in case OF
that kind you should find the defendants guilty, sup
posing the evidence is in that direction would you
be opposed capital punishmcnti'
"No sir" said the witness. The judge then ques'
toned the Juror until finally he drew ont the TACT
that the man would not find verdict OF guilty IN
voving capital punishment on ccumstantal evidence
Then he said
4
that do not think man is u competent juryman
in a criminal who Is willing to come to verlict
upon a certain sort OF evidence which may Involve
certain penalty and which to the minds OF many
men IS more severe than the death penalty, when in
his mind he dSrusts his Judgment on the evidence
ITSELF and is unwilling to inhict the death penalty,
where the evidence convnces his mind beyond all
reasonable doubt. do not think he ought to be a
juryman in this case and him for that reason
To Juror Trcleanen the State-Attorney put the
question: Would you juror in any case inhlcs
the death penalty where the evidence is wholly cir
cumstanttal!"
No. sir said the man. Judge Mcconnell finally
rendered his ruling as fjllows:
This court feels always able to admit error, II
he thinks any opinion he has given IS wrong, and
when | gave my ruling heretofore 10 the eXamna-
ton of jurymen along this particular line, had not
supposed that should meet with who were
willing send to States prison for life, and
yot wero not perfectly clear in their own minds and
satisfied with the evidence on which they sent him.
That was a phase of human nature which l had not
then discovered, but which confronts us here. /
think a man who takes that view disqualincs himself
in other ways il not under the statute. /
have read the statute somevha differently,
and l still believe il made against class of
men VINO hold philosOphcay that the state has no
right, under any circumstances. TO take away the
persons of that mind. But tbs particular tuTyman
TO credit; evidence which tho law OF his rccO
nlzes substantially as important anu satisfying as
direct evidence and Is cOatcndcd by great many
authorities TO BE- more satisfying and rcliable than
some kinds OF direct evidence. l think he dsqualfcs
himself from another point OF view than that and
may be quite convinced that ! somewhat wrong
in my original tendency to rule against this kind OF
disqualification. II challenge + made l shall be
Obliged to sustain ~
The statc-Atomey at once challenged the juror
for and the challenge was sustained, the defence
taking the usual exception to the ruling of the court.