New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-12
WHAT THE JURORS SAY.
VIEWS OF SEVERAL OF THEM ON BUR
BRIDGE AND STEIN.
THE STATEMENT OF THE JUROR SCOTT SAID TO
HAVE BEEN HANDED TO JUSTICE BAR
RErr-PRoBABLE MOTIVES OF THE
- u TWO WHO VOTED FOR
ACQUITTAL

. - - TWO WHO VOTED FOR
AcouITrAL.
Several of the jurors on the Mclaughlin trial
were talked with last night as to their opinions OF
the Jurors Buroridge and Stein. Among the jurors
who EXPRESSED an opinion emphatcally were
Emanuel j. Pekan, Joseph Bulova and Charles
A. Schaefer.
Mr. Pelkan was seen at his home, No. l46 East
Ninety-seventh-st.. and said: "All / can say
about BurbYidges proposed statement TO the JUS
tce is that he did not know what he wanted TO
saw nor did he know what he wanted to say IN the
1uryroom. He appeared to have his mind MADE
up from the time he left the court, and positively
refused TO discuss the subject. Every effort was
made 10 induce him to give his reasons for disa-
rreelnz with his fellow jurors. but all in vain He
gave no valid reasons whatever. He and Stein
were like the Siamese twins. they were found so
closely together in their unreasoning obstinacy.
AS soon as they were convinced on one point they
fell back upon another and finally refused TO dis
cuss the subject
Joseph Bulova the Maiden Lane jeweler was
seen at his home No. 52s East Ninety-seventh-
ct and said: u believe Burbridge and Stein
made up their minds before they entered the
juryroom not to agree with their feowjurors on
a verdict OF guilty. 1t seems to me there was
something uncean behind their obstinacy. From
my experience in the juryroom will say that 1t
IL more essential TO get fair-minded jury than
a strong case | have little doubt there
something behind those Jurors that induced them
10 hold out so obstinately Burbi.dge, In my
opinion, should not have been allowed to enter
the Jury box He did not want to reason he did
not want 10 be convinced He had made up his
mind and would not submit or agree with his
fellow-jurors II he were locked up for month
The other man. Stein. must have had some
motive also which induced him 10 resist all
efforts 20 convince him lie gave extremely silly
reasons for his doubts on certain points. Shortly
after going into tho juryroom ten were unsni
nous for = verdict Of guilty Nine Of The Jurors
could have rendered n verdict without leaving
the court"
Charles A. schaefer. ~ No. ~ whitehall-r''
who was seen last night. md who Is one OF the
most experienced Jurors In tho box, said; Before
we had been long In the jury-room Burbridge
said. I tell you. gentlemen. have made up my
mind and II ! had 10 stop here until hell freezes
over I will not change It. endeavored to rea-
son with him but all In vain. | understand he
said 70 Juror Scott that he would have a thousand
dollars. and be rich man inside Of week or
be a poor man. This remark heard by sew
erai Jurors As to Stein. he would have an opin-
ion one way now. and another In the next mo-
ment, and he was consistent only In his per-
sistent obstinacy There was no use in trying 10
reason with these men,"
STEMS STATEMENT
Charles Stein was seen late last night at his
home. No 75s Lexington-ave. He was then tired
and sleepy, but willingly consented to answer all
questions put to him. He advanced several argu-
ments In support Of the attitude he assumed. One
OF them was In substance as follows: Mine Of the
jury would not listen to arguments made by me
and some Of them have stated that they had read
60 much in the papers about police corruption thai
every one brought to trial must be guilty. Fur.
thermore these nine jurors arrived at a verdict In
less than minute after they entered the jury
room. and without any elaboration" Mr.. Stein
would not mention any names In connection
with the above statement. Other arguments
lie advanced were that there dis