The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1893-01-27
DAN CoNoHLIN'S CHANCE.

nviry 10 M Error 81 the Trial Judge Ia
Permitting Incompetent Jurors =" -"
Ia the Case.
OrrAw A. ILL.,. Jan. Gothic state SUI
preme court yesterday among other
decisions. handed down an opinion IN
the Cronin murder case In which the
cour, reverses the decision of the lower
court and remands the ease Tor triai.
The decision i nearly 20, BOO words IN
length and IL does not. as might nave
been expected. go into he merits OF
the evidence or into the question OF
the guilt or innocence of the prisoner
but deals directly with the chief point
at issue, namely: Whether or not
the two Jurors were qualified 70 act
upon the ease. In deciding that these
men. Eontecou and Clark. were not
| qualified To act MS fair and Impartial
Jurors. the court goes To great length.
and in it's opinion cites "A long list Oh
authorities from its own previous dc.
cisicns and the decisions OF courts OF
other states. Ii says:
Tue Jurors Bontccou and Clark. we believe
expressed the holding OF opinions IN their ex-
animation In The lower court, and though tne
impression may seem to have been slight. u
was neverthe' ess. sufficient TO prejudice the
minds OF tho %iurymen upon the particular
point
From the opinions cited, taking them
altogether. it i plain that the rule IN
this state. excepting so far as II Is mod
itied by the statute, is perfectly wei
settled that IL "A Juror has formed a de-
cided opinion upon the merits OF the
ease. either from personal knowledge OF
the facts or from statements or rumof'
and the opinion ispositive, he isdisquai-
flied. No case can be found where a
Juror. after admitting the existence IN
his mind of an opinion Of that charac-
ter, has been permitted to establish his
own competence by testifying that he
can, or will. render IN impartial YER
diet. Such opinion has been uniformly
held a disqualification per sc. The in
competency OF the juror follows as a
necessary legal consequences which is
incapable of being rebutted. A jury
should stand Indifferent between the
parties. No bias should influence Its
judgment and sever it from strict i'm
partiality.'
at would have taken" says Tho
court i'm 60 Illinois. it5. las much cvi
dcnce to remove his unfounded pre-
judices as to convince him of the JUS
tice of the defense. The worthless
ness Of the testimony of the juror as t
his own fairness j. well stated in D
Illinois. $40. where several jurors wer
said to bc SO far lost to the sense o
/, Justice that they regarded what al
right-thinking men knew To he wron'
: rs just and impartial: nor can 1t be sai'
that instructions of the court woul'
> correct the bias of jurors who swea
that they incline in favor of one OF til
litigants. We have reached the poin
+ where we may properly consider TIA
; question as to how far these well es
; tablished rules have been modified b.
: section -. chapter as of the revise
Z statutes. That section declares tina
certain enumerated objections TO pet
: jurors not material here shall he sun
y Gent cause of challenge and conclude
: with the ~proviso:
= Providing. further. that il shall not be
:" cau-a OF challenge that a juror has r,ad in Z!
: newspapers an account of the commission
= the Grim. with which the prisoner IL charge
4 II snch inror shall state on oath that he b
- iirvrs he can render an impartial verdict. a
cording 20 the law and evidence. The cons'
n tntsonAlitv Of this statute was directly Gallo
one-tinn in spies vs.. the People lie Illinois.
ana we there held il 10 be constitutional. al
We arc still disposed TO adhere to 4
" conclusion Announced in that cas-. ~
under the starnte the competency OF I
II Juror remains a judicial question as the Gov
m /. empowered 10 decide VIII ther or not I
iuror is telling the truth when he says that
-. - 1ost -pf fair verdict uofUff
- standing his opinion. II must lie concci
G. that the constitutional provision ruaranteei
w. 10 every person accused OF crime the right Y
~ trial by an impartial jury. has the SAM for
since the statute n. before. IL the trial cou
10 IN this cas-, was In error in ov-rruling tbs d
o. feniant's challs age t. any one OF the jurors Q
TX jsc.ed 70. Judgment must b,
49, versei. 1t seems to us TO
abundnntlv manifest frsm the exaininati
OF poaiecou nni Clark that both must ha
Aged and sei:l al opinions a. 70 the guilt or
a. norencc Of the Il PENDANTS. aud among them
Coughlau. the plaintiff in error They a
- r,owed fxei and settled opinions. appetite
y, relation to the truth OF most OF tie fact- slies
Nv the prosecution and relied mon rs tel
IN. ing 10 establish tho guilt Of the defer
ants. These facts wont ~ the very 'ouniat
=. ~ the ease. 80 that without proof Of to u
conviction OF the defendants would have b
nj inpossihi.. BDntec,u ani Clark had statei
the trial Judge that they hal opinion WI
- they would have hard work to remove. an
was plainly an error Tor the court to llier'
force them TO : srve on the jury Ivy telling IN
nj that they should put aside their prejuh'
ed aud serve a. good citizens should The rr'
Of dice 81 u, jarors against camp Nand is M
", b.rs All the state nents made b. them
~ di-auaIifying units. We are % the opinion !
her Jurors Bontecou and Clark were disqnalif
and the court below errsd in ovsrruling
IAN challenges to those jurors. This order me-
49, "a. .-...- ~ sha informant n
net .iAy 49,. .o,rhl,, ana the r,,e na 10
the IA remandei 10 the criminal court OF {
nee county for new trial.
a I,.,;c.s Scodeld and Nacruder
nss. sent from this opinion. Scofield mel
stating that he disscnts and Magru
yer in "A document ZOO words in length
mt
ere p,c.,,on Of yerarIty.