The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-27
A WILLING WITNESS IN DURRANT'S BEHALF.

ton of the jurors does not comply Win
the provisions of sections 204 and 2Oo OF the
Code of Civil Procedure in this, that 1t does
not appear that they were selected IN this
relation of persons not exempt from ser
vice. We refer particularly IN this to
the fact that number OF those obtained
by the court Yesterday were instead OF
their being selected by reason OF
their not being exempt from jury duty IL
was found that several were exempt from
Jury duty by their testimony; that others
presented certificates of physicians TO snow
that they were not physically and mentally
capable of being jurors in the case. we
make this objection specifically to eacn one
of the list that has been presented ana
filed with the County Clerk of the City and
County of San Francisco"
COLLECTION overruIed." said Judge Muir,
ply. "If such an objection as that coulo
prevail it would devolve upon each OF the
Judges of this court to personally inspect
the physical infirmities OF all jurors
1--WE simply stand within the law" said
Mr.. Deuprey. "Of course, the law may be
cumbersome" -,
1.-THE challenge of the panel is disal-
lowed, >" said Judge Murphy.
This matter being so disposed OF, the
court ordered that the slips OF paper con-
tanning the names of the jurors be placed
in the tin box and twelve names be drawn
therefrom. This was done and twelve
members of the panel answered their
names, were sworn and took their seats II
the jury-box.
Gentlemen of the jury" said District
Attorney Barnes, arising to address them,
land desire the other talesmen present
to give me their neutrality-suspicious. of
the jury, the defendant, William Henry
Theodore Durrant, is charged by the
people of the State of California with the
crime of murder, namely, in having caused
the death of one Blanche Lamont, in this
City and County, in the Emmanuel Bap-
fist Church, on Bartlett street, between
Twenty-second and Twenty-third, on or
about the Sd of April of this year. For
this offense he is now brought to trial and
YOU are called to be examined as jurors to
try this case"
Clerk Morris called the name of William
Helbing. contractor and builder, residing
at 1905 Treat avenue.
'Are you member of Emmanuel Bap-
fist Church? ?" asked the District Attorney.
"No sir"
"Are you acquainted with the defendant
Durrant?"
mo, sir, was the reply.
HAS the relation of attorney and client
ever existed between you and Mr.. Deuprey
or General Dickinson"
mo, sir"
"Have you ever had any business rela-
quainted with Mr.. Morse?"
mo, sir, replied Mr.. Helbing.
"Have you any religious scruples against
the infection of the death penalty in
'No sir. came the prompt reply.
''Mr. Helbing," continued Mr.. Barnes,
"if there should be produced in this case
evidence which was circumstantial in its
nature, would you disregard that evidence
simply and solely because it was circum-
stantial evidence and refuse to consider it
In arriving at your verdict, or would you
give it such weight as you would con-
slider ii entitled to and give it such eight
as it de3ervedY'
The witness did not quite understand
the question, and stated he only knew the
difference between direct and circumstan-
tial evidence from reading the papers. The
District Attorney then gave him illustra-
tons of both kinds of evidence and asked:
''Now, would you regard and take into
your consideration, for the purpose OF
arriving at your verdict, such circumstan-
tial evidence as might be presented to you,
as well as direct evidence ?"
"Of course" was the reply.
I'm other words, you would consider
circumstanrial evidence ?"
"Well, it depends on how strong it is.
"Would you consider circumstantial evil
dencc and weigh it, giving it such weight
as you would think it entitled to in your
mind?"
81 would"
"And you would weigh it as you would
any other evidence?"
II would"
"If you were satisfied in your own mind
by circumstantial evidence of the guilt of
the defendant, could you find verdict of
guilty where the punishment would be
death upon such evidence?"
Eyes, sir, | would"
do you know of any reason why you
would not be able to sit as a. fair and i'm
partial juror i'll this case and render just
verdict as between the people on one side
and the defendant on the other?"
"No, SIR"
The prosecution passed the juror, and
he was taken in hand by Mr.. Deuprey for
the defense.
Have you any acquaintance with l. W.
Lees?''
mo, sir"
"Or Mr.. Benjamin Bohen2"
''No. sir"
Cor Mr.. Seymour"
mo, sir"
And so it went through the list of City
detectives, the Chief of Police, the Coroner
and his deputies, the Juror answering "no"
to every question. He also pleaded total
ignorance Of the existence of such persons
as the District Attorney or any of his as
sistants, or of C. G. Noble, uncle of Blanche
Lamont; Rev. J. George Gibson, pastor OF
Emmanuel Baptist Church; the pastors
secretary, Mr.. Lynch; Elmer Wolf, Clar-
ence Wolf and Minnie Lord. The witness
stated that he had read the testimony
given at the Coroner's inquest, and had
discussed it freely with a number of
friends.
Have you ever discussed it with any
person who was q witness either at the
hearing before the Coroner or at the pre-
iminary examination"
mo, sir
From what you have read" asked Mr..
Deuprey, land from the discussions in
which you engaged, have you formed or
expressed an opinion as to the guilt or in
nocence of the defendant-not what the
opinion is, but, have you expressed an
opinion ?'
81 have, SIR"
"Do you now possess an opinion as to
the guilt or innocence of the defendant"
Eyes, sir"
SIS that opinion such one as would re-
quire evidence, strong evidence, to remove
it?'
Eyes, sir''
"In other words, would you like to be
tried upon charge of this serious nature
by twelve men possessing such an opinion
as you now possess?"
Il would not like to be; no, sir"