The San Francisco call., 1895-08-02

McNear residing at 1907 Baker street, was
next examined. He stated that he had no
conscientious scruples against the lnfiic-
ton of the death penalty and considered
circumstantial evidence better than direct
evidence, if strong. In answer to further
questions he testified that he was unac-
quainted with Durrant or any of his fam
lily, or with the pastor or any OF the mem
bers of Emmanuel Baptist Church. He
had read of the case in the newspapers
and had discussed it, but had formed no
opinion and presumed he could make a
fair and impartial juror. He admitted
that an impression had been made on his
mind by reading the story of the case in
the newspapers.
'Do you think" asked Mr.. Barnes,
"that, Notwithstanding any impressions
you have in this case, you could go into
the iury-box and be sworn and accepted,
and set that aside and try the case solely
and only upon the law and the evidence
produced here?"
Il think So"
care you sure that you could ?"
II have no doubt that l could"
Mr.. Haskell was pressed closely by Mr..
Deuprey upon cross-examination, but held
stoutly to the belief that he could try the
case fairly and impartially. Further on,
in answer to questions, he said that he
recognized the fact that circumstances
might sometimes lie, as well as witnesses,
and that people were very liable to make
serious mistakes in the matter of identiti-
cation. He was asked concerning his ac-
quaintance with the District Attorney or
attaches of his Office, or with the Police
Department, but answering negatively he
was passed.
The ten men called to the box had all
been examined and disposed of but Messrs
Brown, Wright and Haskell, and the court
lyo1 4Ioxy cl,ol
their right of peremptory challenge Mr..
Barnes asked a few moments for consulta-
ton and Immediately entered into con-
versation with his assistant, Mr.. Peixotto,
and Captain Lees. After the lapse of
about two minutes the District Attorney
announced that the State was satisfied.
'Defendant's peremptory challenge" !"
said Judge Murphy.
"We excuse Mr.. Wright" said Mr.. Deu-
prey, and the stationer who had figured on
the Shattuck jury took his leave of the
box.
The State refused again to exercise the
peremptory challenge, and Mr. Deuprey
then excused Mr.. Haskell, leaving Wal
ter S. Brown to be disposed of. Both
sides announced their satisfaction with
Mr.. Brown, and, under instructions from
Judge Murphy, he was sworn in, the fifth
juror secured to try Theodore Durrant.
Seven more names were drawn from the
little tin box, and their owners sworn as
follows: William Watkins, J. A. Saltz,
Isidore Ackerman, G. P. Nathan, A. Stet-
son, w. f. Menne and George W. Sweetser.
Mr.. Watkins, who keeps a grocery at
1912 Green street, stated that he had con-
scientious scruples as to the infliction of
the death penalty on circumstantial evil
dence. He was challenged by the prosecu-
ton and excused.
J. A. Saltz, who resides at 2734 Pine
street, was also challenged and excused on
the same ground.
Isidore s. Ackerman, manager of the
Anglo-American Crockery and Glassware
Company, residing at 2419 Washington
street, was next examined. He stated that
he had no conscientious scruples against
the lnfiiction of the death penalty and was
prepared to consider and weigh circum-
stantial evidence at its proper value.
"Do understand you to say" asked Mr..
Peixotto, who was conducting the ex-
animation for the prosecution, ''that if you
could be satisfied in your own mind by
circumstantial evidence of the guilt of the
party accused of premeditated and de-
liberate murder you could find him guilty,
though the penalty OF death would follow 2"
Eyes, SIR"
"Mr. Ackerman was then questioned as
to his knowledge of the defendant, his at
replied that he knew none of them. He
was passed by the prosecution.
In answer to question by Mr.. Deuprey
he stated that he had read much concern
ing the case in the newspapers. He had
heard it discussed, but from these dis
cussions had formed no opinion.
"Then, as | understand it," said Mr..
Deuprey, Eat the present time you are en-
tirely free from any impression or opinion
as to the guilt or innocence of the de-
fendant?"
Eyes, SIR"
Mr.. Alderman then answered that he
had not been acquainted with Blanche
Lamont and knew neither Elmer nor
Clarence Wolf, J. George Gibson, his secre-
tary, Mr.. Lynch, and that he was not a
member of Emmanuel Baptist Church.
In relation to circumstantial evidence and
the matter of Identification he stated that
mistakes were likely to occur and all testi-
mony IN the latter regard must be taken
with great caution.
do you know of any reason 2" asked
Mr.; Deuprey, why you could not fairly
and impartially try this charge as between
the State and the defendant?'
mo, sir.''
would you be guided solely by the eyi-