The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1890-05-22

lHIO IHeSe Columns LuaL 1t was
not in keeping with the spirit of
progress of the age to exclude
men from the jury, on grounds
that have lost their force and
point, and are therefore now
absurd. We intended to write
this article Immediately after
the trial, and had asked a legal
friend to furnish us with the
opinions of eminent jnrists on
the question, who has not done so
till just now. The following are
the extracts:
Chief Justice Agnew, os Penn
sylvania, said: 'We must either
recede and go back to the prac
tice Of an age when ingnorance e
Of passing events constitute d a
characteristic of tie times, and
exclude every juror who has
formed an opinion, even the
slightest; or we must stand
abreast with the present age,
when every remarkable event
of today is known all over the
country tomorrow, and exclude
those only whose opinions are
so fixed as to be prs-judgments,
or have been formed upon the
known evidences Of the case. 1t
is needless to say that the world
moves and carries us with it, and
if we lag behind we must commit
the trial Of the most causes in
life to those so ignorant that
their dark minds have never
been smitten by the rays of in
telligence." Us p. 424.)
Chief Justice Marshall, in the
trial Of Aaron Burr, said: "Were
it possible to obtain a jury with
out any prepossessions whatever,
respecting the guilt or innocence
of the accused, it would be ex-
tremely desirable to obtain such
a jury: but this is perhaps i'm
possible and therefore will net
be required. The opinion which
has been avowed by the court is
that light impressions which
may fairly be supposed to yield
to the testimony that may be
offered, which may leave the
mind open to d fair considera-
tion of that testimony, consti-
tute no sufficient objection to a
juror; but that these strong and
deep impressions which will
close the mind against the testi-
m0ny that may be offered in op-
position to them, which will
combat that testimony and re-
sist its force, do constitute a suf-
ticient objection to him."
In 1873 Chief Justice Waite
used this language in the opiu-
ion in Reynolds v. u. S., 9S U. S.
155: "The theory Of the law is
that a juror who has formed an
opinion cannot be impartial.
Every opinion which he may
entertain need hot have that ef-
feet. In these days Of newspa-
per enterprise aud universal ed
ucatiOn, every case Of public in
terest is almost rs a matter of
necessity, brought to the atten.
ten of all the intelligent people
IN the vicinity, and scarcely any
one can be found among those
best fitted for jurors who has
not read or heard of it, and who
has not some impressions OF
some opinions in respect to its
merits. 1t is clear, therefore
that upon the trial of the Issue
Of fact raised by a challen ye fol-
such cause the court will practi-
cally be called upon to deter
mine whether the nature an6
strength Of the opinion formed
are such, as, in law, necessarily
to raise the presumption Of par
tiality."
In the famous Webster case
Chief Justice Shaw, Of Mass.
said: "The opinion or judgment
must be something more than Z
vague impression, formed from
casual conversation with others
or from reading imperfect, abre
waited newspaper reports. 1
must be such an opinion upo1
the merits of the question a:
would be likely to to bias o
pervert candid judgment upor
a full hearing of the evidence.
In an Iowa case State VS.. Law
renee, 3S Iowa 81, a juror wa
held competent who said: "
be ieve the man has been mur
dered and that the defendan
did it. 1t would now take SOM
evidence Or explanation to re
move the opinion from IN.
MIND. l have no bias upon IN,
mind for or against the defend
, ant. / know nothing about tn
case except what / have hear
from rumor and newspape
prints. I believe I can sit an
decide the case with tie sam
| impartiality as i'll had neve
: heard of the case"
In an English case, Lord Tel
: terden said: "The ancient al
, thorities show that expression