The record-union., 1896-04-16

OHere0 must logically result in the con-
clusion that he who interposes it con-
fesses to weakness dishonorable to his
manhood. 1T must appear to the level
minded and those who have clear per-
ceptions of justice and honest convic-
tlons of right and wrong say these
contestants, that it is impossible to be
in such a mental frame and retain SAN
ity as to render one incapable of pass
ing upon a question of fact upon it's
merits alone and wholly irrespective
of personal bias
we can, OF course, understand why
one may be so allied to another, be so
deeply in sympathy with him, as to re-
allze that the sympathies might sway
his judgment, and all such are disquali-
ned from sitting in judgment. But the
question here is-and it is raised anew
by reason of excuses offered in a pend
ing murder trial in this city-can any
honest man afford to say that he is in
capable of passing upon the facts de-
veloped at the trial and rendering
verdict upon them regardless of his
bias, his knowledge of or belief as to
facts outside Of those developed or
likely to develop in the trial?
1t is claimed that no man can put
himself into the position Of incapacity
in that respect without writing himself
down dishonest, unjust and merciless.
That there is no man of ordinary in
telligence with clear convictions of
what is right and what is wrong who
| is not capable of saying what is and
what is not proved in given case pre-
sented for his judgment. On the other
| hand, it is as warmly contended that
| the honest man who has knowledge of
facts which prejudice him in a case on
trial and convince him against the de-
fendant cannot possibly go into the
| jury box, put those facts out Of his
mind, wholly ignore them, and render
verdict in direct conflict with them
and upon the testimony adduced on the
trial, taken alone.
| For instance, a recent case is cited in
which certain parties were on trial be-
| fore an official body and concerning de-
| PENDANTS certain facts were known, es-
tablishing in the fair mind the guilt Of
| the accused. But such facts could not
be and were not brought out in the ex-
animation Of the case. Now, say those
defending the plea, could we, knowing
| ing that the testimony offered to secure
their acquittal was unworthy, though
| 1t stood uncontradicted, mistaken in
the trial, could we possibly be honest,
sitting in judgment on such case and
render verdict of acquittal? Assur
edly not
But despite all this we must hold that
the honest man, the man true to his
duty as a juror can sit in a panel and
on the evidence presented render ver-
dict impartially and free from color of
bias, no matter what his convictions re-
garding the defendant may be, based on
bias or on beliefs not touched by
the trial. The error Of those who de-
| fend the plea sincerely lies in the as
sumption that the juror is responsible
to society for the verdict when it is in
conflict with the jurors personal knowl-
edge Or prejudices.
The law, the result of all human ex
perience, has established certain rules
| by which testimony is to be tested and
its relevancy and competency are to be
determined. Under these certain proofs
only are admissible. Variants of these
rules are dangerous to the liberties and
lives of men, and hence the law of evil
dence is almost rigid, is exceedingly
clear cut and sharply defined. The law
declares that the guilt or innocence of
men accused must be determined ac-
cording to these laws governing the ad-
mission of testimony and the evolution
of evidence. The juror who is called up
on to find a fact under these rules, does
his duty to society.
Regarding knowledge by the juror of
facts outside of the legal proofs, and
which he may insist would incapaci-
tate him to deal impartially, let such
reflect that the juror judges of the cred
ibility Of witnesses; he is judge of the
fact. If, then, he knows the testimony
Of witnesses in a case to be opposed to
the truth he will not, should not, re-
ceive it, and this disposes completely
Of the objection concerning preknowl-
edge.
Concerning the excuse of prejudice"
not preknowledge Of facts-clearly he
who says he cannot give another a fair
trial because of it, places himself in an
exceedingly awkward position, to char
itably state it. He is to be sworn to
pass upon the facts, yet on examination
under oath declares that he would
abuse that oath, violate it, perjure HIM
self because of prejudice entertained
against the defendant. We do not see
how 1t is possible to escape from this
conclusion.
! If one says that he is incapable of ar
irving at verdict on the evidence in
the case as developed by the trial, he
confesses that he is the slave of precon-
ceptions; that he is not a free man; that
he is mentally incompetent to do justice
In other words every man ought to be,
and every man of intelligence and hon
esty capable Of self-examination is able
to pass upon given statement of facts
on the basis of that statement, and re-
gardless of prejudice, or of precon-
| oafxraJ orin;nrc Ma haract ,,,ap +baro