Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-05-08
THE RIGHTS OF JURORS.

The Dereret News is requested to
answer the question. Is II right, In
testing the qualifications Of a citizen
10 serve as a juror ir criminal case
to ask him whether he is a member
OF the Mormon Church, Of 20 interro-
gate him as to his religious Deliet?'
We reply, emphaticolly, no to both
parts Of The question. The Constitution
Of this state provides that, No re-
Iiglous test shall be required az o qua
nfcatlon for any Office of public trust
or for any vote at any election nor
shall any person be incompetent as a
witness oc juror on account Of re-
lIgious belief or the absence thereof"
This we should think would be suf-
ficient to settle the matter beyond fair
dispute. An attorney on either side
has no more right to ask a person
summoned as juror whether he Is a
member OF the Mormon Church, than
IL he belongs to the Catholic, Episcopal
ian. Methodist, Baptist, Congregation
nj or other church, or whether he be-
longs to any church at all Such a
question is most improper, and the
citizen thus Intercepted has perfect
right to refuse TO answer 1t, We are OF
the opinion that an impartial court
would sustain him In such refusal.
The laws OF the State define distinct-
ly who are competent to serve as iur-
ors. Also who are incompetent for that
position and who are exempt. These
provisions can be found in title IS. Re-
vlsed Statutes OF Utah. Challenges are
permitted on certain specified grounds.
These are stated in chapter 30 OF the
Criminal code so far as they apply to
criminal cases The provisions as to
challenges Of Jurors in civil cases, may
be found in chapter IS of the Code OF
clyil procedure. In neither OF them can
there be found any justification for
asking Juror what church he belongs
to, or what is his religious belief or
unbelief; nor is there anything In them
which, by Implication authorizes the
imposition OF such test
A challenge for bias is proper, and
may be as to actual or implied bias
The grounds for such challenges are
stated distinctly In the statutes, and no
attorney has the right to go beyond
them. Having formed or expressed an
unqualified opinion or belief that the
prisoner Is guilty or not guilty OF the
offense charged, IL q sufficient ground
for challenge. unless II is shown that
such opinion would not influence d
verdict. A mere impression not found.
ed on some evidence is insufficient to
dsquaiify the Juror 'An opinion
founded upon public rumor, statements
in public Journals. or common notoriety
is not a disqualification, n 1t appears
to the court that Notwithstanding
he can act impartially and fairly In
the trial.
Coming down to the case now before
a criminal court in this city. 1t should
be explained. that II q person sum
moned as a juror believes In the state
ment of another that God had revealed
the guilt or innocence OF the accused.
that would be evidence Of bias and a
proper ground for challenge therefor. |
But mere belief in the sincerity OF the |
other person claiming to have received |
Iuch manifestation, would not amount |
10 belief In the alleged revelation.
The alleged recipient OF the cominuni.
'ation may believe II TO be divine, but
( does not follow that another individ-
ial, no matter how much he may re-
Ipect him, accepts his view Of his i'm.
lression. II would take personal
Of a similar character, TO
atisfy thoughtful and discriminat-
ng mind Unless the Juror actually be-
Ives, for himself, that the accused Is
unity. founding that opinion on She
of the purported reyela-
lon. he cannot be properly challenged
or that cause.
SO much has been said on this par
Icular point. that II becomes neces.
airy for Us TO repeat what We explained
me months ago concerning Il. In the
Mormon" Church, while the doctrine
I revelation from God is taught and
ccepted, no such evidence Is per.
lifted IN trial of a member for i'm
roper conduct. The accused Is entitled
fair trial on the evidence pre-
'nted to the court. Opinion does not
unit mere Impressions are not ad-
fitted. A statement that God had re-
,aled the guilt or innocence Of the ac.
Ised, could not be introduced. This
Ight 10 be understood, SO as 10 cor
CT false impressions that seem to
Ive obtained great weight
Further. a revelation claimed TO have
en- received by a member Of the
lurch in reference TO any fact re-
sous or secular. is not required to
accepted by any other person than
9 one obtaining II. Other members f,
,uld have the right before believing
TO obtain similar manifestation. J
the absence OF that, the purported {
would remain for what Z