The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1893-01-27
WHAT WILL THE EFFECT BEP

The decision of the Supreme Court,
of Illinois, in the Cronin case, may
possibly cut considerable figure in
criminal cases in the future 1t
would seem to establish a very bad
precedent, and should it be followed
out would debar any intelligent man
from acting as juror in case that
had attracted any degree of public at
tention. The court held that two of
the jurors in the case, Messrs. Bonte-
cOu and Clarke, were preiudiced in
that they admitted that they had
read all that had been published in
the newspapers concerning the case,
and were of the opinion that if it were
true, the prisoners were guilty. They
admitted that they had prejudice
against the Clan-na-G8l, and both be-
| lieyed that DR.. Cronin had been con-
demned to death by that body, and
that he had been murdered by it's
agents. But they made oath to the
fact that they could decide the case
upon it's merits, and upon that oath
they were accepted as jurors. The
! fact as to their belief as to the Clan
na-G3l is in the opinion of the Chica-
go Inter Ocean, extra judicial, and was
not fit subject Of inquiry, even in the
case of first Instance. For the Ques-
tion at issue was not "by whose Or
der was CONN killed" but, "were
Coughlin and others in conspiracy
to kill him?" If they were in such
conspiracy they were guilty; the
question of by whose direction they
enterd into such conspiracy was not
partof res gest8." 1t was part of
thSt accumulative evidence that goes
tfconyict or acQuit on the testimony
81 circumstances, which by many ex-
(cellent lawyers is held to be the best
testimony. For men may lie, but
things can not. Furthermore Bon
tecou and Clark, neither of whom
seemed anxious to serve on the jury,
but rather to escape from service, both
said that, presuming the newspaper
accounts to be correct. they were of
the opinion that Coughlin was guilty,
but if evidence showed such reports to
be incorrect they were of the opinion
that he was not guilty.
In it's decision the court admits that
the two jurors declared themselves
| able to bring IN d verdict solely upon
the evidence presented in court, and
then further on goes on to say that it
does not think that they were able to
determine whether they were in the
state of mind to which they made
oath they were. Surely this is most
dangerous precedent to establish.
Direct evidence is the strongest which
can be given and in ruling this one
side and taking the liberty it does it
would seem that the court was step
ping beyond it's province. If man
who is considered by a court as capa-
BILE of giving evidence, is held to be
incapable of knowing his own mind
when he says he can Qeclde between
published accounts in the newspapers
and the evidence produced in court
under oath. we have surely reached a
pretty state Of affairs, and should this
pass into general practice, it would
result in bringing the jury system in
to greater disrepute than it is now re-
garded by many people. 1t is hard in
these days to find men who have not
read more or less about an important
case, but if he makes oath to the fact
that he can render verdict upon the
evidence so presented, there ought to
be no reason why he should not make
} an acceptable juror, and be more
; capable of rendering a just verdict
than he who Is totally ignorant not
only as to the case but as to every
thing else. Intelligence surely ought
not to be a dangerous element to in
troduce into jury room.
|
THE House committee on lmml
Grafton has nrenarads9 hill DrOViding