Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1902-04-18
STANDS

dietment cannot be based on facts noG
appearing on the record. fGommon-
wealth VS.. Hayden 2S l.. 4. a., 31S}=
In State vs. Davis, II Iowa, 3I5, tn
defendant offered To prove by membcr5
Of the srand jury tAat they had r
fused To find Indictment for muf
der Con which he was then being
tricd4, and, in fact. had only voted an
Indictment for manslaGEhter The saz
ipremc court said:
After an Indictment ha. aeea pa
sented to the court by the Grand jus4
filed and become matter . fee0rd
it Is not competent fer those whe
found the Indictment to testify that
/ they did net vote 70 ind TIE bill, or IL
explain how thoy did vote. ~ what
they intended to find
The reasoning OF The supreme co0rt
of Iowa III the Gibbs ard Davis case
and of the supreme court IT Nis5ou
in the Baker case, is peculiarly applls
cable here, because the statHtes ef the
three states on this subject are prac=
tieally identical. Our stat6te says:
Every member Of the grand jury
must keep secret whatever he, him.
self, or any other grand juror, may
have said; or in what manner he, OF
any other grand juror, may have vot-
ed on a matter before them (S. q
II. Digest, section 2054).
So, too. our laws require an indict-
ment to be brought into court by the
| foreman and presented and filed in the
| presence of all Of the grand jury. (S.
& II. Digest, section 2073)
A strict compliance with this pro
vison is Indispensable and cannot be
waived. (Robinson vs.. The State, SO
Ark, 1907.
When this is done the Indictment
becomes a record of the court and, as
such. imports absolute verify, and,
| like any other record. cannot be i'm
peached or disputed by the parol tes=
timony Of those who made it. The
provision of the law requiring the in
dictment to be presented and filed iii
the presence of all the grand jury
must be construed to have some pur=
pose and meaning. 1t is difficult t9
conceive what that purpose could be
unless it is to have tho grand jurors,
by their presence, testify their assent
to the solemn act Of their foreman in
presenting tho bill. 1t must be prcsum=
ed, both as a matter of common sense
and as a conclusion Of law, that the
grand jurors know what it is that
their foreman is presenting to the
court in their name, and, if SO, then
1 70, Il, I>/,'.r
own act. Records would be of little
value if, after having been made anG
entered with all the forms and solem-
mites which characterize the presen-
tation of true bill to the court, the
very grand jurors who presented it
could be afterwards heard to say that
they did not know what It was that
they brought into the court, or did not,
in fact, consent to it The evils which
would result to the public from such
a course are so great and so manifest,
and the danger of wrong being done
to any individual SO slight that the
law does not hesitate in making
choice.
There are many other authorities to-
the same effect as those from which
! have quoted.
(Here the court gives a number of
citations.)
The same principle has been almost
universally adopted in cases, both Eng
lish and American, where it has been
sought to impeach the verdict Of a
petit jury by the affidavits of the ju-
rors who rendered it, and this irrespec-
tive of any statute forbidding it, In
Peasants VS.. Heard, IS Ark, 403. the
supreme court Of Arkansas passed di-
rectly upon this question and held that
it was unlawful and against public
policy to receive the affidavits of jur-
ors to impeach their verdict, and cited
a large number Of cases in support of
the decision. This decision has been
followed and approved in the more re-
cent case of Ward VS.. Blackwood, ad-
ministrator. 48 Ark, 408.
In the case at bar the record af-
firmatively shows that the indictment
(and one other, also against the same
defendant) was filed in open court
!!"in the presence of all the grand jury,
that no other indictments were pre-