The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1901-09-22
CZOLGOSZ BEFORE THE LAW.
RIGHTS OF PRESIDENT M'kIN.
LEY,s MURDERER DEFINED.
a Speedy Trial Psssabse under the New
ysrk Iaws the Matter u IN Appeal
Trial ef the Lincoln Csnvtfssers
and ef President 0srneid's Muraerer.

ana ef President 0srneid's Murderer.
BUFFALO. Sept. Alt In possible 70 try
Icon Czolgo-z In the courts Of New York
state as speedily as In any court In any
state In the Union. While the Inf ent OF
the criminal laws OF New York h TO SUR
round all persons accused OF crime with
every nscessary safeguard against unjust
conviction. nevertheless there b. no reason
for prolonged delay In this particular case
and 10 the trial proceeds with the same
celebrity that has marked the preliminary
proceedings the assassin OF President
Mckinley will be convicted. sentenced and
executed In a comparatively bricf time.
A careful study Of the Code Of Cumina
Procedure Of this state will convince the
average layman that tbs law " not designed
to delay but rather to insure the admin
i~ssra,ion 81 absolute justice without pneJu-
dicr or partially. In the eyes OF the law
Leon Czolgosz l. Innocent until proved
guilty, and to prov. him guilty Il will tie
necessary to produce the proof IN tho same
manner as In an ordinary criminal trial.
A. he Il accused % q capital crime he
cannot plead guilty II he wishes TO, he
cau.e the Code provides that - convic-
tion shall not Ire had upon a plea Of guilty
where this crime charged Is or may lie pun
i-hable by death In other words mere
admission of guilt by the defendant Is not
enough, but Il must he proved by evidence
sufficient to con vince a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt
OF cour-e only one plausible defence
Ia open In this particular case. insanity
section 81 Of the PEN Code defines the
degree Of insanity which excuses from
--a-- H.Ints. - N.lA.as sIhaf nj
the time Of committing the alleged crmi-
nal act the defendant was laboring under
0ich a defect Of reason A. either not To
know the nature and quality Of the act he
was doing OF not To know the act was
wrong
This defence the courts have held h an
Affirmative issue which ths defendant u
hound Ia prove. hut II has also been held
tina the prisoner u entitled TO the beneht
Of any doubt resting upon the question oil
sanity. That " to say. after the defence
has a~firuAtively shown that the defendant
was insane to the extent prescribed by
the statute, tha prosecution viii bs re-
quired To rebuff this proof and remove all
doubt, an undertaking which the record
Of murder trials for the past few years has
shown Is not very difficult, as jurors have
a habit 81 regarding this defence AZ a last
desperate resort 20 escape deserved pun
ishment. Indeed. II Is safe TO predict that
when the drawing ~ the Czolgo~z jury
USklnS mnFe Uhtu VIII " tAthrfu bh ~
count Of their reluctance TO aocep, insanity
as a defence than for any other reason.
lie u lar impression that n man who
has read the newspapers and formed an
opinion IL disqualified To sit ~ a juror "
~eIroneous. section SO Of the Code OF
Criminal PROCEDURE. which defines the
CAUSES for challenges, says In part: But
the previous expression or formation OF
an opinion or Impression in reference To
the guilt or innocence OF the defendant or
n present opinion or impression In refer,
ence thereto ~ not sufficient ground OF
challenge for actual bias TO any person
otherwise legally qualified II he declare on
oath that he believes tina such opinion or
impression will not influence his verdict.
and that be can render an impartial YER
dict according Ia the evidence, and the
Court is satisfied that hes does not entertain
such a present ~oIanion or impression ~
would influence his verdict. thus II Will
he seen that a juror has merely to declare
that he will render an impartial verdict
according 20 the evidence, and any pre-
vious opinion h nav have formed will not
~disluAlify The latitude OF examination
allowed on challenges under this section
H. what has led 10 the ma idea hat
men with opinions are not competent 10
cit on a jury In q murder trial.
Prosecution and defence have each two
kinds Of challenges Of individual Jurors.
viz. pcremptory and for cause. The
peremptory challenge Is defined by section
sT2 Of the Code Of Criminal Procedure ~
AN objection 10 a juror for which no reason
need be given. bu upon which the Court
must exclud him Under this section
the Court has no discretion In excluding =
juror. for It has been held that u n the
very cssence Of n pereiGptory challenge
that u u one for which no reason need be
given In a capital case thirty Of tbs~e
challenges are alloved
section ga Of the Code Of Criminal Pro-
cedure defines challenges for cause ~
follows:
a. General. that the Juror i disqualified
"a Particular. that he Il disqualified from
serving In the case on trial.
The general causes for challenge are q
conviction OF n felony or q lack OF any OF
the qualification prescribed by the Gods
Of Civil Procedure To render a pcr-on a
competent juror. The particular causes
for challenge are:
a. For such bias. q. when the eli-tencs
Of the facts IL ascertained, does In the judy
ment Of Law disqualify the Juror and which Il
known Ia the Code a. implied bias;
az For th. existence Of a state o. mind
on the part of a Juror IN reference 10 thu cas-
or 20 either party. which satisfied the Court
10 the exercise Of a sound discretion that such
wi,Sou, prsjudice To the substantiaI rights
Of the party challenging. and which IL known
In the Code ~ actual has
II Ia under this last paragraph that the
LAWYERS devote most Of their time to ex.
amining prospective Jurors a. the grounds
for challenges for implied bias are care
fully defined and easily ascertained. viz
~ Consan suiuity or affinity within he ninth
degree TO the person alleged to he injured BY
The crime charged or on whose complaint
the prosecution was Instituted. or to the
defendant
al bearing In him the relation Of guardian
or ward, attorney OF client. or client OF tbs
attorney or counsel for the people or defend
ant, or Of the person alleged to BE- injured
nv the defence charged. or on whoss COM
plaint the prosecution was instituted. OF
In his employment on wagrr
81 Being a party adverse 20 the defend
ant in q civil action or having complained
against or been accused by him In a criminal
IA Uaving served on Q Grand Jury
which found the Indictment
81 Having served on = trial jury which
has tried another person q the crime char xed
IN the indictment.
"teI Having been one Of a jury formerly
sworn 10 try the same indictnert, and who's.
verdict VS. s~t aside or which was discharged
without q verdict. after the cause was sub
Ut Having served as a juror IN a civil
action brought Hxain-, thu defendant fol
the act charged a. a crtne.
a. N the crime charged he punishable
with death, the cntertalning 81 such con
sci.ntiou- scruple- a. would preclude hi
Nndins the defendant guilty: In which cas-
he shall neither he permitted nor compellec
TO serve a. n juror.
MANY unwilling juror escape servics
nv iudicioss u-e Of this las; section and
u hardly necr-~ary Ia say that th~i'