Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-05-06

he had formed an opinion but 1t was
not definite. He may have, at some
time, expressed an opinion. lie had
arrived at a certain conclusion.
"Then you could not enter upon the
case In an unbiased frame OF mind,
could you?"
81 hardly think ] could"
Mr. Hawkins was excused.
Mr.. Keete said he had an unqualified
opinion and perhaps had expressed 1t
although he could not say at the pres
ent time He still held TO that opinion
and II would require some weight Of
evidence TO remove It. He could not
enter upon the trial Of the case with a
mind free from impressions. and II he
were on trial he would not care to have
& juror judge him who was In the frame
Of mind that he (the Juror was. The
gentleman was excused
II was noticed In the examination Of
the jurors by Bernard Stewart, that
the defense had changed their tactics
In questioning the jurors, and set out at
once to determine whether or not they
had opinions.
Mr.. Mayne stated that he had read
the papers, had an opinion, had e6-
pressed II and still had that opinion.
Mr.. Stewart then challenged this juror
on the grounds OF implied bias, and as
the state did not resist the challenge,
Mr.. Maybe was excused
Juror H. d. Shurtlff was one Of
many. He did not have an opinion.
Never had one and OF course had never
expressed one.
From the fact that 1t has been re-
ported that Mortensen's wife and
brother in-law had deserted him, had
refused him financial aid and were do
ing all they could TO assist the officers,
would that have any effect upon your
rendering a verdict2'
mo, sir: Il would not"
The juror said he had been on the
Jury several times and twice on crimi-
nal cases. One case was that where a
person was accused Of poisoning and
the jury unanimously found HIM guilty
The other case was where Chnaman
was accused as an accomplice In muir
der and the jury arrived at a verdict
Of not guilty. Then Atty. Bernard Stew
art unconsciously and Internationally
threw the courtroom into commissions
Of laughter by asking;
Were you ever on a jury that was
hung?"
The answer was: 81 believe not, or I
would not now be here"
Mr.. Eichnor-Mr. Stewart, you will
frighten Mr. Smith and Mr.. Bring
hurst" (Laughter).
|, Every person In the courtroom saw
the joke and laughed heartily. with
the exception of Peter Mortensen. His
face flushed deep scarlet, and II re-
qulred some moments for him to regain
his composure
Mr. Shurtllff stated that he knew Mr.
Whitaker, Mr. Hays brother-in-law,
as county commissioner.
Did he ever render you any political
assstance?"
mo, sir"
Considerable merrlment was caused
when Mr., Eichnor informed Mr.. Stew
art that the juror was good Repub-
lican and not Of the same political faith
as Mr.. Whitaker,
IF al the trial Of this case Mrs. Pc
ter Mortensen should not testify by
reason Of undue influence or by reason
Of her being In a delicate state OF
health or for any reason at all, would
the fact OF her not testifylng at all in
nuenCe you IN your NerulctF
mo, sir II would not"
IF at the trial one theory was ad-
vanced by which you would be con-
WINGED Of defendants guilt and another
one advanced by which you could ex-
plain away that guilt, would you do
so?"
II would"
"Have you read Mr. Sharp's testi-
mony on the preliminary hearing?"
yes. sir"
"would the fact that you read that
testimony influence your yerdict?"
mo, sir"
The juror was passed for cause and
later accepted by attorneys for both
sides,
j, A. Cunningham stated that he had
read reports OF the case In the papers.
but that he had formed no opinion on
the matter and had none at the pres
cnt time
Would the fact that public sent-
ment was against defendant influence
your verdiot?'
mo SIR"
do you know Mr.. Sharp
Eyes. sir"
Have you talked with him about
this case?'
Eyes. sir, the morning after the pre-
urinary hearing"
Did he express an opinion as 10 the
guilt or innocence Of defendant"
yes. sir"
Would his opinion influence your YER
dict?"
'No sir. none OF his statements would
influence me without other evidence on
the trial 20 corroborate them
Gould YOU enter upon the trial OF
this case without any bias and try IL
solely upon the eyidcnce?'
Eyes. sir"
Would you give the defendant the
benefit OF a doubt?"
Yes. sir"
IF II Of the Jurors wanted to return
a verdict Of guilty and you had a doubt
as to his guilt would you yield that
doubt to the majority?"
mo. sir
Mr.. Cunningham was passed for
cause.
F. $. Murphy OF the Utah Lumber
company, had formed an opinion which
was unqualified and would require evil
dence 10 remove Il. He did not think
he could enter upon the trial with an
unbiased mind Mr.. Stewart chal-
iengcd him for cause and, there being
no resistance on the part OF the state,
the Juror was excused.
Charles Denhalter, Of the Denhalter
Bottling Works, had also formed an
opinion which would not permit him