The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-23


your own?" asked Mr.. Deuprey.
81 would, was the prompt reply.
"You take and read THE CALL, Chronicle,
Examiner and the rest of the papers, do
you not?"
mo; take THE CALL and Post-with the
Monitor
did you read the articles concerning
this case printed in the papers last week?"
mo; l saw the Judges charge and was
careful what | read"
you are positive that you could try
this case?"
eyes, COULD
Mr. Lynch was passed for the time, and
the court informed the District Attorney
that Mr.. Lynch was then subject to per-
satisfaction with him after considerable
consultation with Captain Lees. The de-
tense exercised the peremptory privilege
and excused Mr.. Lynch
Three more names were drawn from the
round box and the examination was re-
sumed.
j. Miller said he was opposed to the
death penalty in any case, and upon being
questioned by Judge Murphy, expressed
the opinion that convicted persons, no
matter what the crime, should be pun
ished in life and be permitted to live that
they might be punished. He was OK
cused.
C. Klopstock was challenged by the State
because he was conscientiously opposed to
the death penalty on circumstantial evil
dence. He declared he did not believe in
circumstantial evidence. He was excused.
II. II. Hogan answered the questions
with a promptness and clearness of tone,
so unlike anything that had been heard
for many, many hours, that Judge Murphy
seemed surprised and greatly pleased. He
was excused as promptly by the defense,
when he said IL tv0r1ld reouira strong ayi-
dence to remove the opinion that he had
formed and still possessed.
r. G. Cunningham lent a deafened ear
to the District Attorney, and Mr.. Barnes
was obliged to shout in loud voice:
"You think you would not make a good
juror on account OF your opinion ?"
81 think not"
''Mr. Cunningham, said Judge Muir
ply. in a still small voice, you are ex-
cused.''
Mr.. Cunningham passed from the box,
and the Judge in court whisper re-
marked, "He heard that"
John Conner proved satisfactory to the
State When he was asked by Mr.. Leu
prey if he would be willing to be tried by
twelve men of the same mind as his own,
he hesitated, but finally said:
There is nothing to hinder me from
| giving this defendant fair and impartial
| trial.
Mr.. Connor had about shown himself
| qualified to sit when he recalled circum-
stance in which Mrs. Thompson, wife of
one of counsel for the defense, had made
an impression on his mind, yet he would
feel it duty to act fairly. Mrs. Thomp-
son had told him something in Durrant' s
favor, he said, and while he would divest
his mind of whatever opinion he might
possess. yet he did not really feel that he
ought to try the case.
| Mr. or1ir cd nd hal on odd
him. The court then took him in hand,
and again Mr.. Deuprey examined him. He
| stated that Mrs. Thompson had told him
she knew Durrant and knew he was in
nocent, and the impression Of her state
ment was still in his mind.
The challenge was allowed.
George Kamerer was excused by the de-
Tense on account OF his opinion.
| r. R. Raphael said he had an opinion.
| and was excused by the State.
| ]. Fields stated that he was not on the
assessment roll and was excused.
]. Fiegel stated that he had conscientious
scruples against the infection of the death
| penalty. He was excused by the State.
w. III. Lemon was excused by the State.
He stated that it would require strong evil
dence to remove his opinion.
J. NJ Goey was easily passed by the pros
ecution. but he proved unsatisfactory to the
defense because he said he would not give
the same weight to the testimony of per-
son charged with crime as to other wit
| nesses.
"You take it that person is guilty be-
cause he is charged with crime" said
Mr.. Deuprey.
mo; but if he is an interested party I
| would look upon his evidence with more
doubt"
| an opinion. He was excused on defend
ants challenge.
E. H. Knight said he had served as
juror many times, had no conscientious
scruples as to the death penalty and no
prejudice against circumstantial evidence.
He was passed by the State. In answer to
questions of Mr. Deuprey he said that he
did not consider newspaper reports as evil
dence, and that the opinion he had formed
was based on the merits of the case as he
considered it. In reference to the testi
| mony of a person charged with crime, he
said:
''In case of this kind would not give
as much weight to his testimony as to
other witnesses"
witnesses corroborated the defendants
testimony"
sThen his innocence would be estab-
lished by the dozen witnesses"
Mr.. Knight said it would require evil
dence to remove. the opinion he had
formed OF the guilt or innocence OF the
defendant i'll this case, and he was excused
by the defense.
P Bethlehem and L. II. Eckart were ex-
cused for their opinions.
w. S. Rainey was passed by the State.
In answer to Mr. Deuprey he said he
thought circumstantial evidence was a
| good form of evidence. He said he would
consider evidence OF Identification with a
| good deal of caution as he had been mis-
fob far 10 l1rof al Poi
number of times.
| In regard to the question OF reasonable
doubt and the instructions of the court Mr..
! Rainey was not satisfactorily clear and the
| State consented to the challenge of the de-
| Tense and he was excused
! j. ]. Hauser and J. Abraham both said
they had opinions and were excused.
| G. Gibbe said he had never received a
! tax notice and was not on the last assess
| ment roll. He was excused.
| The court then admonished the jurors in
| the usual form and an adjournment was
| %xl~ Ill, nI-s L