The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-27

Have you talked to any person in rela
ton to what you have read ?'
81 have"
Have you formed or expressed any
opinion as to the guilt or innocence OF the
defeadant?"
Eyes, sir" promptly replied the witness
do you now possess that oplnion?"
eyes, SIR"
'Is that opinion such that it would re.
quire evidence to remove it?"
Very strong evidence" replied Mr..
Seiberlich.
I'm other words, as you now are, with
the opinion that you possess, you would
not sit there as an impartial juror-you
the opinion you now hold p
eyes, SIR"
''And do you believe you could sit here
and try this case as an impartial Juror be-
tween the defendant and the State 2'
Eyes, sir"
''Do you mean to say that you, possess
ing an opinion from what you have read
and discussed, could go into that jury-box
with the same condition of mind as be-
tween the State and the defendant as
though you had never read anything or
discussed the matter?"
81 would take the case as the evidence
was given" was the reply.
Would you like to be tried by twelve
men possessing the same opinion you pos
sess at the present time fyou were charged
with crimeP'
81 would"
"If you were charged by the court, Mr..
Seiberlich, in relation to circumstantial
evidence that if you possessed reasonable
doubt as to any one circumstance that
might be testified to-that is to say, any
essential circumstance that might be testi-
fed to-would you, if charged that that
must be resolved in favor Of the defendant,
be guided by such a charger"
Eyes, sir; would
Have you any opinion" asked Mr.
Deuprey, taking new tack and disclosing
part of what will be the line of defense, "in
relation to the requirements of testimony
in regard to identihcation?"
ain which way?" inquired the juror.
THAT is to say, as to the liability of a
person being mistaken in regard to the
person whom they claim was present at a
certain place on certain occasion THAT
is, do you believe in the falllbility of testi-
mony upon dentiication-that person
may be misguided by the thought that
possessed him at the time he claims to
have seen the person?"
Eyes, sir" answered the Juror.
That they might be misguided as to
color, size and surrounding conditions?"
Yes, sir.
do you recognize now that such mis-
takes could occur, and that the person so
testifving could be mistaken"
Eyes, SIR
''Do you believe, sir, with all that you
have said upon the matter pertaining to
this case, and from what you have heard
others say, and with all you have read in
regard to it, that you could sit here as an
i'm partial juror to try this case"
II think | could" said Mr.. Seiberlich.
''And that you would free yourself from
any opinion you have formed in regard to
it?''
II would accept the evidence"
"And that you would sit here, if sworn
as Juror, listen to the evidence and weigh
the same in exactly the like position as
though you had never read anything about
the case, or discussed it, or heard it dis
cussed? 2"
Eyes, sir'
1--WE pass for the present." said Mr..
Deuprey.
Mr.. Barnes took the juror again.
''If you should be convinced by the evil
dence produced before you of the guilt of
the defendant" he said, would you find
him guilty upon that evidence-tinding
your verdict alone upon that evidence, and
not be swayed or influenced by any senti-
ment of sympathy or compassion toward
the defendant or any of his relatives2'
eyes, sir"
"Would you" asked Mr.. Deuprey, rising
quickly to his feet, "be influenced under
any circumstances, if you were sworn as a
juror, in relation to the evidence in the
case, or your verdict, by any influence that
might be exercised through any line or
direction coming from the Police Depart
ment of the City and County of San Fran
cisco?"
Il object to that question, promptly ex-
claimed Mr.. Barnes.
81 would accept it the same as any
other" was the reply of the juror.
II am asking you" said Mr.. Deuprey,
''would you be influenced by any act OF the
Police Department
mo, SIR"
Would you be influenced by the news
papers after you were sworn as JUROR"
mo, sir"
The defense passed the Juror, and James
w. Orndorff of 102 Powell street was next
questioned. He stated that he had con-
scientious scruples against the lnfiictlon OF
the death penalty where the testimony
was circumstantial. He also stated that
he had formed very strong opinion con-
corning the guilt or innocence of the de-
PENDANT from talking to friends and read
ing the newspapers. He was firm In the
belief that he was not in the proper frame
of mind TO act as a juror and was chal-
lenged for cause by the District Attorney.
There being no denial the court allowed
the challenge and the Juror was excused.
John Schuiken of 901 Bush street stated
plainly that he would not be in favor of
returning a verdict, the consequence of
which would be the death penalty, on cir
cum stantial evidence. He was CHALLENGED