The Irish standard., 1893-01-28
cROryINs CASE REDIVIVUS.

The Cronin murder case has been re-
vived by decision rendered last week
/ by the supreme court OF illinois revers
ling the verdict Of Judge McC onnelrs
court and ordering new trial for Dan
Coughlin who has been undergoing life
sentence in the Joliet penitentiary for al
LEGGED participation in the assassination
of DR.. r. 81. Cronin ip May 1889, Justice
Bailey delivered the decision at great
length, and the entire supreme bench
concurred with the exception of Justices
Magruder and Scholfield who dissented
| from the reasoning and conclusions OF
their learned colleagues. After recital
of the facts bearing on the disappearance
of the murdered man and the discovery
of his remains, Judge Bailey reviews the
case and says that the evidence connect
ing Coughlin and his CO. defendants with
the homicide is purely circumstantial;
that no evidence was presented to show
conclusively that DR.. Cronin was ever
tried by camp 20 Of the Clan ma Gaels,
or that any committee was appointed by
that organization to try him; and that the
evidence produced at the trial did not
connect the defendants with the Clan-na-
Gael. "Tnere is evidence tending to
show" says Judge Bailey, that at q
meeting of camp 20, held February 8,
1889, Coughlia made motion for the
appointment by the senior guardian of
committee of three, and that on his mo
ton defendant Bsggs, then senior guar
dian, appointed Coughiin, Burke and
O'Sulivan, but it does not appear that
such committee was appointed for the
trial of DR.. Cronin, but the evidence
seems to indicate that it was appointed
for an entirely different purpose"
| The attorney for Coughlin assigned
forty eight errors in the rulings IF Judge
Mcconnell, and in support of these he
filed brief larger in size than copy Of
the Illinois reports. The supreme bench
took up only one error assigned, and that
was the overriding by Judge Mcconnell
of a challenge of two Jurors who were
objected to by the defendants on the
ground Of their being prejudicsd against
! the Clan-na- Gael. One Of the jurors, Bon
tecou, testified on examination that he
entertained prejudice against the NOM
beers of camp 20 and would not believe
any Of them under oath. The other
juror, Clark, declared that he had formed
an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of
the defendants based upon newspaper re-
ports. He admitted that he had FREE
quensly expressed his opinion regarding
the guilt or innocence of the accused,
aad that he had prejudice against the
Clan Ma Gael society. Having honestly
confessed their prejudices in this manner,
Judge Mcconnell held that the compe-
tency of each as juror was established
and overruled the challenge interposed
by the attorneys for the defense, and so
the two jurors were sworn to render a
fair and impartial verdict according to
law and the evidence. The propriety of
this ruling of the lower court constituted
the only question the supreme court felt
called upon to consider. After explain
| ing the rules of common law in the selec-
ii of jurors and referring to the consti-
tuition of the state and of the United
States On the subject, Judge Bailey
quoted various decisions rendered in
similar cases to that before him, and TAX
ing them altogether he thought it per
fectly we'll settled that if juror has
formed decided opinion upon the merits
of case either from the statements of
witnesses, or from rumor, and that his
opinion is positive and such as will prob
ably prevent him from giving an impair
tial verdict, he is disqualified. Applying
the principles involved in the cases
quoted to the facts before him, the de-
PENDANTS in the Cronin case had con-
stitutonal right to trial by twelve i'm
partial men, and if any one OF them was
lacking in the requirement of impartial
lily, the defendants had not been tried by
| oil 4lApdI 0AeaA Jul y 1ao A0& 1Ao DOAVoCOu
and Clark, they both had in their minds
fixed and settled opinions as to the guilt
or innocence of the defendants, and
among them Of Coughlin. They both
disclosed prejudice against the defend
ants themselves, and against the Nom
bers Of a society to which they belonged,
and prejudice which they admitted
would have tendency to affect their
action as jurors. To compel person
accused of crime to be tried by juror
who has prejudged his case is not to give
him fair trial Nor should defendant
be compelled to rely, as his security for
the impartiality of the jurors by whom
he is to be tried, upon the restraining
and controlling influence upon the jurors
mind of his oath t. render true verdict
according to the law and the evidence.
His impartiality should appear bafore he
is permitted to take the oath. It he is