The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-08-29
The 0itta aly Eagle ghursdaY sHorg august 2e 1895

case decided by the court and the pres
emf case. That in that case he referred
10 there had been a statement made to
the juror OF the facts ii the case and
he had formed an opinion but that il
would require evidence TO remove that
opinion, but also said that he could try
the case impartially notwithstanding
that opinion ard the supreme court
properly held that ne was incompetent
but that other decisions OF the supreme
court and OF ali courts where the ques-
ton has been raised had decided that
what We're called opinions IN the exam
nations OF the Jurors here were not
opinions at all, and would not disqual-
fly the jurors. ana if given time l could
shaw that, but he promptly sustained
the challenge without waiting for fur
Their argument He had excused sey-
eral competent jurors on the same
ground before over my objection I
have been patiently submitting 10 the
course Of Judge Hatton in the trial Of
this case. / am satisfied that ne has
been playing into the hands or the de-
Tense from the start. That he do so in
making out his original list. That he
did so in making out all subsequent
lists from the city and also in making
out the list from the county. He has
been dillydaliying and consuming time
with the examination OF incompetent
jurors that he knew 10 be incompetent
when he summoned them for the pur-
pose OF making the impression among
the people that the attempt 10 enforce
the law would entail very heavy ex-
penses to the county. When forced 10
to take competent jurors who were free
from prejudice and f2ir-minded he ar
bitrarily excused them on a pretenSe.
His object has been from the start TO
pack the jury and prevent verdict of
guilty. In my opinion and in the opin-
ion of many persons VINO have observed
the course Of events If he had proceeded
according TO law and directed the Of
ficers 10 fill up the panel from the neigh
boring citizens there has not been any
three hours during the time that has
been wasted for the last four days when
a jury in this or any other case of Suf-
fcient Importance 10 be generally talk
ed about.
'In the Medlicolt case reported in 9Th
Kansas. page 27S, we find this language:
&C. r. Anderson was sworn and in an
swer TO questions by counsel for de-
PENDANT stated that he believed ne had
formed an opinion on the issue 10 he
tried and may have expressed such
opinion and could not say that ii would
not take testimony to change. Counsel
for defendant then challenged him for
cause. Whereupon the court asked An
derson certain questions in answer TO
which he stated that the opinion he had
formed was based upon newspaper re-
ports only. That it was an opinion and
was dependent upon the truth of the
newspaper account; that he had no
knowledge whether that account was
true or not; that the impression was
not positive or fixed but dependent upon
the truth or falsity of the newspaper
accounts. The challenge for cause was
oVerruled.'
~ A Magher, in answer 10 ques-
tons of defendants counsel, stated
that he had formed no opinion but that
he had a belief that would require tes
timony to change: could not say il was
firmly settled; would wish to he salts
fed as 70 whether his belief was right
or nOt-and again in answer 10 ques-
tons by the court stated that he had
formed no opinion or impression as 70
the guilt or innocense of the accused,
only a belief On what the belief was
based does not appear. II would re-
quire testimony TO satisfy him that his
belief was wrong. This man was chal-
lenged for cause and the challenge over
ruled.
ION the question Of the competency
of these jurors the supreme court says:
Although Anderson at first stated that
tiOning ii appeared clearly that il was
an impression only and that impression
depended on the newspaper account Of
the truth of which he had no knowl
edge. Wa think there was no error in
overruling the challenge for cause IN his
case. An impression is not an opinion
and is not made cause for challenge by
the state. In the Burr case Chief JUS
tice Marshall observed that light i'm
pressiOnS which are supposed 20 yield to
the testimony that may be offered
which leave the mind open TO fair con-
sideration of that testimony constitutes
no sufficient objection to a juror but
that those strong and deep impressions
which will close the mind against tes-
timony that may he offered in opposi-
ton 10 them which will combat that
testimony and resist its force do con-
stitute a sufficient objection 10 him.
The supreme court in the Medlicott
case further says tested by these cOndi-
tons we would not say that Anderson
was not a proper juror. There is moth
ing to show bias or prejudice. There
was no opinion formed. He had read
bout the case in the newspapers and
what he had read had made some i'm
preston. but not such as 10 prevent his
judgment from being governed by the
testimony in the case and giving 10 II
fair and just consideration. In these
times IL would he difficult 70 find men
fit to sit upon jury who had not some