The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-11
IN THE DURRANT CASE,
The Supreme Court Decided
the Question Involved by
Juror Brown.
True" VIII Have to Be Selected
to FIJI the Box.

There is a good deal of speculation con-
may take regarding District Attorney
Barnes motion to excuse Juror Brown
from service in the Durrant trial. The
court will decide the motion Monday
morning, and if the States peremptory
challenge is allowed that will not reflect
in any way on Juror Browns reputation.
Mr.. Barnes has already stated that his re-
quest to excuse Brown does not imply
anything derogatory of the juror. 1t is
merely to enable the prosecution to exer-
else their judgment in the selection of the
Jurors. A man for many reasons may not
make an acceptable juror and yet be per-
fectly honest and sincere in his answers.
1t is rather thought that Judge Murphy
VIII allow the challenge, in which case it
will be necessary to secure four more
jurors to complete the dozen.
Doubtless Juror Brown will be much
pleased to be released from service, though
it is not at all likely that the court is tax
ing any cognizance of Mr.. Browns wishes
in the matter. Of course the defense will
take an exception to the courts ruling
should it be for the dismissal of the Juror,
but it is not thought the point would be of
any avail to the defendant in case of an
appeal.
It is the opinion of well-posted criminal
lawyers that Durrant's only hope lies in
awakening in the minds of the trial Jury
doubt as to his guilt, and not in an APP
peal, should one be necessary. Judge
Murphy is very careful on his law points,
and he will doubtless avoid all possible
technical complications. AS to the matter
of dismissing Juror Brown it would appear
that the Supreme Court had repeatedly
%ha4 1fva% To-,
the case of the People VS.. Montgomery, in
So California, $40, the precise point seems
to have been decided by the Supreme JUS
tees in the following language:
There was no error in granting leave to the
prosecution to interpose a peremptory chal-
lenge to the juror, Duncan, under the circum-
stances stated in the bill of exceptions. Under
section 1908 of the Penal Code the court. in the
exercise of sound discretion, may permit a
peremptory challenge even after the jury is
sworn, and q fortiori, 1t may permit 1t before
the jury is sworn, even though the juror is &C
cepted, and it will not be presumed the court
abused its discretion.
This would seem to be plain enough, but
the same point was again presented on APP
peal in the case of The People VS.. Benz
merry, 81 California, III. and the court
again held: 1t was not error to permit
the prosecution to peremptorily challenge
the juror Hall after he had been sworn,
good reasons being shown therefor.
Two hundred veniremen have been sum-
moned to appear Monday morning, and it
seems as though the three or four Jurors
that may be still desired to fill the box
ought surely to be secured from this list
Monday will be the beginning of the fourth
week of the Durrant trial. Much time has
been wasted because of the difficulty of
getting returns on summons. With the
order issued Friday nearly 1000 veniremen
have already been summoned
If the opinion of some leading members
OF the bar Is correct, the police are wasting
time in searching for women who have
had unpleasant experiences in the EN-
manuel Church with Durrant. Such evil
dence, they say, would be inadmissible
even to rebut evidence of Durrant's good
character. and could not In any way be
made to have bearing on the case. The
point is not likely TO be submitted to the
court, as all the efforts of the police to find
the woman or women i'll the case have so
for foiind