The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-06-09
LIHDQUIST LET OUT
JUDGE LEWIS QUASHES SCHEF-
FER'S INDICTMENT AND BARS
OUT THE JUROR.
ORDERED CASE RESUBMITTED
ALLEMANNIA PRESIDENTS ATTOR-
NEY AT ONCE CHALLENGES
THE GRAND JURY.
OTHERS JOIN IN THE MOVEMENT.
Court Refuses to Recognize the
Claim That the Grand Jury Can
BE Challenged Now.

Judge Lewis rendered his decision
yesterday afternoon on the motion to
quash the indictment against Albert
Scheffer, the president of the Alleman-
MIA bank. AS anticipated, the court
granted the motion, holding that the
Indictment was not found by legal
grand jury, because John Lindquist,
one of it's members, is not a qualified
elector, but an alien, and therefore
disqualified to serve on a grand jury.
Inasmuch as the moving papers in the
motions to quash the indictment
against William F. Bickel and A. S.
Kittson were not the same as in the
Scheffer case, the court inquired
whether the county attorney was will
ing that these cases should stand by
the order in the Scheffer case. Coun-
ty Attorney Anderson said that he
was willing they should, as the state
did not care to take advantage of any
omission or technical defect in the
pleas.
When Judge Lewis assembled the
bench at p. IN. the court room was
well filled with spectators. and attor-
neys. The grand jurors occupied seats
at the right of the court.
The court first directed the clerk to
call the roll OF The grand jury. Every
member responded TO his name except
Messrs. William r. Merriam, Clark,
Noble and Lindquist The roll call fin
ished, Judge Lewis announced:
The court orders that John Lind
C,s,ict no fpOY1 no crra nd
jury. for the reason that he is not a
qualified elector but an alien and a
nonresident of the state of Minnesota,
and therefore disqualified to serve on
the grand jury"
The court also instructed the bailiff
to see that Lindquist was not permitted
to enter the grand jury room.
The court after briefly reciting the
fact of Mr.. Scheffers indictment, the
making of the motion to quash such
indictment and the demurrer Of the
state contending that the defense had
no right to make such motion, read the
order, which is in full as follows:
When the motion to Quash was made
the state demurred, and the court first
reviewing briefly the facts, goes on
to say:
By its demurrer the state admits as true
all Of the allegations in the plea and the state
admits that John Lindquist was member Of
the grand jury the time and acted in the
finding of this indictment, and admits that
said Lindquist was an alien and not qualified
elector of this city county and state and
not a competent grand juror at the time he
was drawn and summoned and acted as such
grand juror.
The pleadings in this case raise but two
questions:
First-Does the presence. of "a disqualified
grand juror, an alien, and his participation in
finding this Indictment vitae the indictment,
and
Second-Can the accused after Indictment
interpose plea in abatement and move to set
aside the indictment as found by an incom-
petent grand jury?
Taking up the two questions raised by the
plea and demurrer in their order:
First-Does the~faet that John Lindquist,
an alien and disqualified grand juror, was a
member Of the grand 1uryand as such mem
Der acted in-fnding the Indictment against the
accused, inValidate the Indictment?
Alienage is an absolute disqualification al
common law, and under our statute none ex-
cept qualified electors of the state are liable to
be drawn as grand jurors, and a qualified
elector in this state, (among other require
ments), must be a full citizen of the United
States. SO that alienage is an absolute dis
qualification imposed by our statute.
The qualifications imposed by statute were
imposed for wise purposes, and were evidently
designed as guards thrown around the lib
erty of the citizen. They constitute i'm
portant part Of the right of trial by jury.
A grand jury does not, by our law, consist
of sixteen or more men assembled by a mere
order of the court, or by accident in the
jury box, but it consists of the requisite
number of competent individuals, selected
summoned and sworn according to the forms
of law, and if they do not possess the requi-
sites Of the law it is an incompetent grand
jury.
1t is the doctrine of the common law thai
the aEenage OF single grand juror vitiates
the Indictment and in 1410 this doctrine was
afhrmed by the statutes of Henry w.. where.
IN 1t is enacted that any Indictment found BY
grand jury, one of whom is disqualified
shall be altogether void.
It is now well settled law in this country
and in England that the presence of an lille.
gal juror in the panel although there be the
minimum number of lawful jurors remaining
yitlateS all of the acts and deliberations OF
the whoie body-thes reason being that the
illegal juror may have been one of the
twelve men who voted for the indictment.
SOME authorities go only so far as to hold
mat the presence of an alien upon the grand
jury renders the indictment yoidable in case
an exception is seasonably raised and nu.
merous other ard respectable authorities e
Iurtner, and hold alienage such a disoualifi.
eaton as will render an Indictment void
though never so many unexceptional persons
JOIN the disqualified juror in finding the in.
Ih1c'lnent ana this upon the principle tina
the accused has an inherent or constitutional
rlght to be indicted by lawful citizens
me conclusion IS therefore irresistible tina
the Indictment in this case is vitiated by tn,
presence OF an incompetent and disqualified
grand juror on the panel If this be tru,
how and when may advantage of this defecs
be taken? And this brings us to the cons:d
Grafton Of the second question raised by thi,
demurrer: Can the accused at the time of hi,
arrangement interpose plea in abatement ani
move to set aside and quash the indictment
round by grand jury, one of whom is dis
quallned by reason of being an alien?
The statutes of Minnesota (section 7Ts3
specify particular grounds for setting asid.
indictments upon motion, but the disoDalifica
ton OF grand juror is not one o: the stain
tory grounds for moving to set aside the in
dctment.
The accused in this case has interDosad ,
plea in abatement and therein sets forth .
statutory and common law disqualification q
one of the grand jurors, and on that groun,
seeks to avoid the Indictment
Our statute, section 71SS provides that ;
person held to answer e charge for publ
offense may challenge the panel of the gran
jury or an individual grand juror before tho,
retire after being charged and sworn -by tn
court, and the second cause for challenge T.
the individual juror is that he is an alien 7
will be observed that the right to challeng
grand jurors is saved only TO persons boun,
over to the grand jury and such persons ma
take advantage OF this right only before III
grand jury retires, and after they arc syor,
and charged.
The constitution Of this state declares tina
mo person shall be held to answer for ,
criminal offense unless on prcscntmcnt o.
indictment by grand jury And the court.
have held that the word Indictment as usei