The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-09

residence is at 2741 California street, wa
next examined. He was very easily passed
by the prosecution, having no scruple
against the infection of the death penalty
and being ready to give proper weight II
circumstantial evidence. He was theI
to question by Mr.. Deuprey stated tina
he had read what purported to be the evi
dence given at the Coroner's inquest ant
at the preliminary examination. HI
stated that he had formed an opinion
based ON this reading.
"That opinion asked Mr.. Deuprey, s'i
would require evidence to remove"
Il could try the case" was the reply.
THAT is to say, you have no opinion
that would weigh with you in regard t.
the facts testified to in this case1"
'No, sir; / have not"
Mr.. Hooper stated that he had no &C
quaintance with any member of the polio,
or detective department. He also stateo
that he had acted as juror in a murder
case some years ago, but could not re
member whether or not the evidence wal
entirely circumstantlal.
SIN regard to circums tantial evidence
do you recognize that it should be ltaker
with the utmost caution?"
Eyes, sir"
ain relation to circum stantial evidence,
continued Mr.. Deuprey, "if you were told
by the court that if there existed reason
able doubt as to one circumstance yor
must resolve it in favor of the defendant
and acquit, would you do so?"
eff so instructed would do so."
"You would have no objection to ths
Instruction."
"No, SIR"
Mr.. Deuprey then put Hypothetical
question, asking. in effect, if in a certain
case, ten essential circumstances were
necessary to be proved and one of them
failed he would resolve that one in favor
of the defendant and acquit.
eyes, sir" answered Mr.. Hooper, "if il
was vital would"
"Do you know of any reason at this time
which would prevent you from giving thi.
defendant fair and impartial trial on the
charge now Pendingp
And If you were sworn as Juror, yor
would sit there assuming the defendant tc
be innocent at all times until proof Of guilt
was made to your satisfaction"
Eyes, sir.
Mr.. Hooper was then passed.
William Costello, next examined, stated
that he had prejudice against circum
stantial evidence, and was also unalterably
fixed in his opinion as to the guilt or limo
cence of the defendant. He was chal,
lenged and excused.
Inere are Two gentlemen now III the
box" said Judge Murphy. Subject to &C
ceptance or peremptofy challenge. What
will you do with them 2"
Counsel for the defense, who had the
first challenge, put their heads together fol
few moments, and then Mr.. Deuprex
smiled sweetly on the court as he said:
Content"
I'VE interpose challenge to Mr.. Gray,
said the District Attorney, who had beer
whispering with Captain Lees.
What will you do with Mr.. Hooper,
asked the court.
Content" again said Mr.. Deuprey.
Satisfied, said the District Attorney.
"Swear Mr. Hooper," said the court, and
the eighth juror in the Durrant case
solenlnly swore to do his duty.
Judge Murphy then admonished the
sworn jurors as to talking about the case
and added:
If any person should meet you or ap-
proach you about this case, or invade your
rights as jurors, it is plainly your duty tc
report such person to the court. No one
has right to accost jurors who are in the
trial of case under any circumstances tc
get their opinions upon this or any other