The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-07-19

encouraged the throwing OF that bomb.
challenged for cause ON the ground of preju-
dice.
son further examination, stated he believed
he could try the case fairly upon the evidence,
and the challenge for cause was overruled.
"UpOn the whole. therefore, considering the
facts brought to light since the trial, as well
the record Of the trial and the answers Of the
jurors as given therein, IL is clearly shown that
while the counsel for defendants agreed to 1T,
Ryce was appointed special bailiff at the sug-
gestion OF the states attorney, and that he did
summon o prejudiced jury, which he believed
would hang the defendants, and, further, that
the fact that Ryce was summoning only that
kind Of men was brought to the attention OF
the court before the panel was full, and 1t was
asked to stop it, but refused to pay any atten-
tlon to the matter, and permitted Ryce to go
on, and then forced the defendants to go to
trial before this jury.
"While no collusion is proved between the
Judge and states attorney, it is clearly shown
that after the verdict and while the motion
for new trial was pending, charge was fled
in court that Ryce had packed the jury, and
that the attorney for the state got Mr.. FavoBto
refuse to make an affidavit bearing on this
point, which the defendants could use, and
then the court refused to take any notice OF IL
unless the affidavit was obtained, although IL
was informed that Mr.. Favor would not make
an affidavit, but stood ready to come into
court and make full statement II the court
desired him to do so.
"These facts alone would call for executive
A,,k a
was not before the supreme court at the time
1t considered the case.
SUPREME COURT ON JURORS COMPETENCY.
"2. The second point urged seems to me to
be equally conclusive. In the case Of The
People vs. Coughlin, known as the Cronin case,
recently decided, the supreme court, in re-
markably able and comprehensive review Of
the law ON this subject, says among other
things;
The holding Of this and other courts is sub
\ stantially uniform, that where IL Ia once
| clearly shown that there exists In the mind OF
the Juror ut the time he Is called to the jury
box o. fixed and positive opinion as TO the
merits Of the case, or as TO the guilt or innO-
cence Of the defendant he Is called TO try, his
4 statement that Notwithstanding such opinion,
| he can render a fair and impartial verdict ac-
cording to the law and evidence, has little, II
This Is so because juror who has sworn to
have in his mind fixed and positive opinion
as to the guilt or innocence OF the accused Is
not impartial, as matter Of fact.
1t Is difficult to see how, after juror has
aVOWed fixed and settled opinion as to the
prisoners guilt, court can be legally satisfied
of the truth Of his answer that he can render
| q fair and impartial verdict or find therefrom
that he has the qualification Of impartiality,
as required by the constitution.
Under such circumstances 1t is idle to in
quire OF the jurors whether they can return
Just and impartial verdicts. The more clear
and positive were their Impressions Of guilt,
| the more certain they may be that they can
act impartially In cOndemning the guilty
party. They go into the box In state OF mind
that Is well calculated to give color OF guilt
to all the evidence, and IL the accused escapes
1 conviction II will not be because the evidence
has not established guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, but because an accused party con-
demned In advance, and called upon TO excul-
pate himself before prejudiced tribunal, has
| succeeded in doing 80.
To try cause by such jury Is to authorize
men, who state that they will lean in their
finding against one Of the parties, unjustly TO
determine the rights OF Others, and IL would
be no difficult task to predict, even before the
| evidence was heard, the verdict that would be
rendered. Nor can 1t be said that instructions
from the court would correct the bias Of the
jurors who swear they incline In favor OF one
Of the litigants.
ONE OF THE CRoNIN JURORS.
Bontecou Zone Of the jurors in the CrOnin
| case), IL Is true, was brought TO make answer
that he could render q fair and impartial YER
dict In accordance with the law and the evil
dence, but that result was reached only after
singulaRly argumentative and persuasive cross
examination by the court, In which the right
Of every person accused Of crime to an Inn
partial trial and to the presumption OF inn0-
cenee until proved guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, and the duty OF every citizen when
summoned az juror TO lay aside all opinions
and prejudices and accord the accused such
trial, was set forth and descanted upon at
length, and In which the intimation was very
clearly made that o Juror who could not do
this was recreant to his duty as o man and
citizen. Under pressure OF this sort Of cross
examination, Bontecou seems to have been