The San Francisco call., 1897-03-24
.OURRANT ASKS
FOR A REHEAR|NG
His Attorneys File Their
Petition in the Fa-
nous Case.
They Use Very Strong Language
in Condemning the Jury
Impaneled.
Claim Made That the Newspapers Had
the Defendant "Massacred"
Before His Trial.

The petition for rehearing in the case
of w. II. T. Durrant was filed by his at
torneys, Eugene N. Deuprey and John II.
Dickinson, with the clerk OF the Supreme
Court yesterday. The documents rather
voluminous, having been printed in PAM
phlet form, and covers thirteen pages.
The first point submitted was that the
court had no power or authority to make
a record which did not exist, and under
such circumstances supply document in
order to authorize the proceeding with a
particular trial.
As regards the jurors it was asserted
nothing unreasonable existed in requiring
that all should be on the last preceding
assessmene roll. A general summary OF
the unfitness of the jurors was summed
up in the following strong language:
We again call the attention of this court to
the point XIV, PIP. 90 to 80 inclusive, in rela-
ton TO this proposition, and transcript vol. IL,
fols. 2641 to 2650, from which record 1t Will
be discovered tnat persons presented them
selves whose names had been selected for jury
service, fourteen Of whom were non-residents
twelve of whom were not citizens, twelve who
did not understand the English lang sew
eral were deaf, a number were exempt ire
men. there were a number incompetent from
old age, there were several professional men,
officials, number of the militia aud num-
Der of Grand Jurors.
None OF these were either suitable or COM
peient to act as jurors
The Superior Court Judges were accused
of falling to comply with their duty by
failing to provide a competent panel OF
jurors. The special venire was not. in the
opinion of Messrs. Deuprey and Dickin-
son. selected according to law, either.
In relation to the action of the court in
the cases of Jurors Crocker and Nathan it
was insisted that the defendant did not
have the privileges given him by the sixth
amendment to the constitution of the
United States. "Under no circumstance"
reads the petition, should he be called
upon to waive the most sacred right in re-
lation to his trial, viz: in the selection of
jurors, by being forced to use peremptory
challenges when challenge for cause is
plain and direct upon which the court
should, with impartial mind, adjudicate.
Juror Brown came In ior his little ver-
bal dose also. Juror Brown" in fact
has come to be scereotyped phrase in
discussing the Durrant trial. In his case,
it was argued that the court did invade
his (defendant's) right to an impartial
trial by jurors.
In commenting upon the attitude Of tine
public press toward the defendant during
the trial the petition asserts that in most
instances their stories were ascertained to
be fabrications.
In conclusion, Deuprey and Dickinson
make an eloquent plea for rehearing and
the privilege of oral argument in the fol-
lowing language:
In regard to several of the questions passed
upon by this honorable tribunal in is opinion
in affirming the judgment of the inferior
court, we can cali more particular and posi-
tive attention by having the privilege of an
oral argument and In the name of ali that is
humane, of all that is just, of all that is fair in
an enlightened age and in an enlieh
country, we peg and we pray that this court
will grant our application for rchearing, and
in any event the privilege of an oral argument
before finally determining the application
now made on behalf OF one who is, as his coun-
sci believe to be. innocent of the awful crimes