The San Francisco call., 1895-08-02

sufficient to satisfy you of the guilt of the
defendant, would you be willing to join in
verdict of guilty where the result might
be death ?"
''I would if the evidence were sufficiently
strong," was the reply.
Are you acquainted with the defendant,
Durrant, or with any member OF his fam
ily?''
mo, sir"
Mr. Brown was unacquainted with any
of the attorneys for the defense, except
Mr.. Deuprey, and knew neither George R.
King, the Emmanuel Church organist. his
father, the dentist, or any of the others
whose names had been mixed up in the
case. He was passed by the prosecution.
In answer to questions by Mr.. Deuprey
the venireman stated that he had neither
business nor social relations with the Dis
trict Attorney or any person in his office.
He had had no relations with the Police
Department of the City of San Francisco.
He was unacquainted with the family OF
C. G. Noble and had no acquaintance with
any one whe had been witness at the
Coroner's inquest or on the preliminary
examination.
"Do you believe" continued Mr.. Deu-
prey, ''that you could act as a free and I'M
partial juror, if sworn to try this case be-
tween the State and the defendant, solely
as the evidence is given in this court and
under the instructions of this court?"
az think So"
"Do you believe that circumstantial evi-
dence should be taken with great deal of
caution?' continued Mr.. Deuprey.
"Well, l certainly believe that it should
be given weight. [ would convict on cir
cumstantial evidence if it were strong
enough"
''You recognize, however, in receiving
circumstantial evidence that it is to be
taken with great deal of caution, and
that the same rule applies to evidence in
regard to identifcation-tha is to say,
that there is greater liability OF mistake in
the matter of the Identification of person
probably than upon any other subject that
might be testified to?"
II think so," replied Mr.. Brown.
"Do you know of any reason at this
time, Mr.. Brown, why you should not
and could not fairly and impartially try
his case?"
II do not" was the reply, and Mr..
Brown was passed for the time.
Joseph Rosenberg of 908 Ellis street
stated that he would not bring in a ver-
dict of guilty on circumstantial evidence.
He was challenged by the State and ex.
cused.
E. w. Wright, a stationer and bookseller
at 118 Taylor street, stated that he had no
conscientious scruples against the inf1ic-
tion of the death penalty and was prepared
to give it all the weight to which 1t was
entitled.
Would you join in a verdict of guilty
where the death of the defendant would
follow upon evidence that was circumstan-
tial IN its nature?"
"Yes, sir; if it were very strong and con-
tinuous."
Mr.. Wright testified that he had read oi
the case in the papers, but only 10 a
chance way. He could not say that he
had read what purported to be verbatim
report OF the testimony at the Coroner
inquest or the preliminary examination
He had talked of and discussed the case on
several occasions.
From what you have read" asked Mr.
Barnes, "and from the conversations that
you have had, have you formed or ex-
pressed an opinion in this case2"
'No, sir; l have not"
"Have you an opinion now?"
Mr.. Wright stated that he was unac-
quainte0 with Durrant or his family, and
knew none of the members of Emmanuel
Baptist Church. He stated that he knew
of no reason why he could not sit as a fail
and impartial juror in the case. He was
passed by the prosecution and taken in
hand by Mr.. Deuprey for the defense. AT.
ter few preliminary questions, to which
Mr.. Wright answered that he had no ac-
quaintance with any person connected with
the District Attorney S office, he was asked
"Have you any relations of any kind OF
nature with the police force of this City ?'
II am proud to say" he answered, "that
have not.
"Do you consider that circumstantial
evidence should be taken with great deal
of caution?'
'My idea is," he replied, 'that it is case
where you have got to think twice before
you speak once. / would have to be salts
fed beyond reasonable doubt that all