Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-01-20
pFel,loN EEvf,Ep.
The Judges Say That Two Jurors Had
No Business Acting.


OTTAWA, H., Jan. T9.-The state
supreme court today. among other de-
clssons, handed down an opinion in the
Cronln murder case IN winch the court
reverses the decision of the lower court
and Tecands the case of Dan Cough
lin, tns CrOnIn convict. for trial. Tns
decision - nearly %, 900 words n length
AMI u does not, a. might nave been ex-
pected. 20 into the merits OF the eyI-
dence or into the question of guilt or
Innocence Of the prisoners, but deals
directly with the enlef point at Issue,
namely.
Whether or not tho two jurors were
qualified 10 act upon the case. From
tAe Opinions, cited. taking them al
together. II = plain that the rule in this
state, excepting 40 far as II IS modified
by the ststute, . perfectly we'll settled, !,
tnatif Juror has formed decided
opinion uDou the merits OF the case
either from personal knowledge of the
fscis or from statements or rumor,
aad the opinion - positive, he Is dis
qualified.
''No csss can be found where Juror,
after admitting the existeDce IN bis
nind OK an cpinion of that character
has been permitted 20 establish MS own
competency BY testifying that be can.
or will render al impartial verdict.
Suca has been uniformslly held dis
qualification perse. Tne iacompeiencv
OF the Juror follows as a necessary
legal consequence watch - incapable
OF being rebutted. A Jury should stand
ind fersnt betwees toe parties. No
hias should influences iis Judgment and
a frarts afragf frlnartrlt-tu
The UapreIuafc.d Juror.
cit would have taken" ssys the court
in the sixtieth lliiuoiss 455. "as much
evidence TO remove ms unfounded
prelud ess as 20 coBvlnce him of the
justice Of the defense. TIE worthless
ness of the testimony of the Juror as
90 pa own fairness e veil stated N So
Illinois 54i. where several jurors were
sad % be so far lost 20 the sense Of
lustice That taey regarded, what all
right IN inSIng men knew to be wrong.
az lust and impartial, nor can Il be
said that tue Instructions Of the court
would c. rrsct the bias OF Jurors wac
swear that they incline ~ favor Of one
Of the iitigsugs. We have not reached
the ID NJ where We may properly o.
sder the question a. 70 how far these
ned ~ secnoa IA, chapter - of the re-
weed statutes.
s'fhst section dec.s thst certain
enuniefated objections To- petit jurors
not nlaterisl here, shall te sufficient
cause OF challenge ard concludes vlsh
the Following proylsos Proving further
that il shall noe be a cause Of chai-
lrnre. thst q Juror has read ~ tha
newspapers An aCcouut Of the crime
wita wbteh the PRISONER - charged. Ii
such Juror sbsli state on cath that he
hsNeves he can render a. impartial
verdict. sccordiug 70 the law aad evi-
dence.
csastssatisa.fltf sf ere ststate
'rras coustitutl0nahtv Of this statute
Wa directly called ln sil~stioa n spires
~. tne peop p. l1Z fiiluois {. aad We taere
held lt 60 - cs,sss itaifousi. aud ws are
stiii dispos a sdbefe to the conofo-
sfon sauaanerd in tnat case u1der car
statute. The con- peteney et zee Juror
remains iufl-iat Qnesf oa. - the
conrt - efst rs-ferea ~ iecfde whether
or nef me Hlfnr telling tpe sfuta
Saea ~ says tsst ae can rensier act
AL galr vsraiet nctw3rsfaad.nK as