The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-03-23
The Supreme Courts Reasons For Civ
ing Wilcox - New Trial

The remitiIsar from the supreme court
reversing the Judgment Of the King coun-
Is Superior court IN the case OF Murderer
william Wilcox. old Charlotte lettings
slayer. was received yesterday al the
eoanty clerk office. the decision having
been written by Judge Dunbar. Judges
Gordon and Anders coneuFring and Judge
Hayt I'm an op.ntan dissenting. IL reyerses
ths decision OF the sole ground that Judge
hames permitted Charles Kellogg 10
serve on The jury over the objection OF
the defense. which challenged him for
cause because Of actual bias. The de-
csslea quotes at length the examination
o. Juror Kellogg. who, among other
things. said tia; he dii not think that II
he We're accused OF murder in the FIRST
degree he would be willing 10 go 10 trial
with jury of twelve Jurors with their
minds In the same condition shat his was
II a. 30 Wilcox's guilt or Innocence.
The defense after this question had been
askei challenged the juror. but Judge
Humes elected from him the statement
that he could Try and determine the cause
s!th the same degree Of supartiality as
he could n he had never heard anything
siseui IL aud that he would oe able 20 dis
regard the opinion he already enter
salaed.
Judge Humes accordingly denied the de-
sendAats challenge and Juror Kellogg
was oae % the twelve men who arrived
At The verdict OF manslaughter against
Wilcox
II seems Ia ux," says the supreme
court, THAT this case falls squarely with
IN the rule laid down by this court in
state VS. Murphy. There. after an exam
inafl0u Of the authorities and n sofue-
what extended presentation Of the reason
faF the conclusion reached by the court,
1 @as decided that tho court erred 10 adj
Knitting to ;ho jury box juror who an
s~ers Substantially 3s the jaror IN :hls
cas- has answered.
Courts always are ani should hr loath
70 .disiayh the verdicts - jurles for er-
fors % th.e kind t}; Il Is the ceustitu-
uonal rjEht 81 every citizen "a lie tried
b an impartial jury ana when that right
IL dSntet Er must have redress There
Wss Uo occasion tu this ease for imposing
THIS iuror upon ,he defendant lie Vas iha
laSt iarog called The defendant had ex-
h&asse3 an hts pcromUtery challenges.
S'fea p!1er froes ha8 1reu etnuanofe>i
No ai~0ialmcd any opinion rs % IN, Eu.l,
"r Innocence 81 this defendant ana $50
aoHht hundreds NJ nen could have lSen
readily obtained who would have hean
ce@@eten; Jurors beyond Any question.
It's defendant VAS charged with
a. atr7etouS crime committed i0 q brutal,
hesrticss. feN35sh manner. ard the cora-
@anity doubtless Wss excited. {utenxei
ans oG;@a god hut these features OF tho
t&@ ENf 1'sH f29 strongest reason Tor A.
eati!uE Aira hial n TRIAL by al ttn7,arts4I
al pevrs sutlov} jcrx. totally un5u-
hasacti ty pnnlir sentiment q Jury every
resrehe~ ~ which could without a qaes-
toa pass upoa his guilt or Innocence sole
AL exclusively from the testimony
pFa2sntea - ths Jrazi
NiNeT errerS arE alleged hy thu 1ofeaA-
80. aat SIS they are not liable - Occur
NfoS a aew trial Ne VIII rot notice them
EoT tha eT~or above discussed the cause
NJ - ~ ersa4 WITH Instructions -
grSnt 4 sew trial "a
@&AEe lioyi fn dissenting says that IA
unable ~ Hn1 anything 81 the record
NhtcA satisfies hlsu that the court abused
rs cascretios1 ia dsnyiaE the tietsnaaat'S
ehaNe7Ee. TIE examination - Juror Kei-
fsSE 15str@ f3Ny1 SAYS. disclosed an cr-
ICY dtfEere7t state ~ n}saH from ira;
1ssetNse3 "a fae examination ~ tho Mar
.aE '@~a-- TIE Murphy tgrar did appear
- - e. = state = e,fnf which dis1aau
Bad hSu.