The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-04
Service on JurieS E'si Rsa so Do s Nst

INSTRUMENTATION easy. and Z,
are alive 20 every occurre,r. 80 n
press eager TO serve up tbe 80 Y
the difficulty OF obtaining Jurors a..
widespread influences has nsS. u
ready to listen to this csus. - e'sa
the juror has formed an on;n;o. !. saslss,
oners are guilty, and entertsins -. '1A I
without waiting 10 hear the evid.r. 0plss
incompetent. But II, from re.5;-es e
or hearing reports, he has an ~
favorable to the prisoner. but H.,
prejudice which will prevent ~ ~
impartial justice when he hears n.
then he IS competent" eS
The books are full OF ooin;o,, -.
case. and the rule may Be s,,r--. - "a
lows: Light impressions. wh;rh "
yield TO the testimony and leav. 4. ~
70 its fair consideration, oonsti,,,,. 8 ~
TO the competency OF Juror ~. 3
which are Of such nature :. IN
mind TO opposing testimony. sn5 u. ~
force, constitute valid objsctjo5 ~
And II the case OF Ashton vs. IT.. :.
Texas Criminal Reports, Judge sin,t;,,' y
language: 1t is no longer The H.
that We must seek men 10 &,
have never read newspapers or hs,r5 u.
Of the crime. The contrary ruling q, Is
qualified the most intellisen, elsss 4
rnunity With the present means II n.
the facts Of ztrociors crimes are n s
spread over large area. and l.srn.s !,
intelligent or reading man within 4.
frou which the jurors are drawn. and q J.
opinion would disquslify the courts :. 4
seek jurors among the less inteliistn, !.
who, from various causes. NAV b ur.u,.
preciats the responsibility OF inn, \
fendsnt IS entitled TO an impartial NJ
not one who is impartial because Of ;p,.~.
iucompetency. Hence a juror who r.,s,
papers may be competent, even tbop,s
formed an opinion theretrou, If Ia
be not fixed, OF II it will not inHuera \
dict. and the court, BY further ex,nrs,
satisfied that It will not"
An inspection Of the other see,i6,, n.
67s will convince any one that our i'm
admirably adapted to secure a fair and <,
jury. and 10 secure jurors that hsy, T.
judged the case 10 such an extent that M,
are not open 70 conviction. argument d +,
]; IS poorly balanced mind. indeed. N
form an opinion from newspaper rspory h
that 81 viil not be able 10 render fan !,
partial verdict. according TO the Law Il
evidence, as heard or the actual trisl.
Even where d Juror had heard The M
defendants oo-deiendsnt. hut testified tkr
no opinion of the defendants gull. OF inn
ard could give defendant fair and l..
trial he was held competent Thonp,
State. 70 Texas Court Of Appeals R,psa
se5-6Is.
The publication OF the facts in GRIMM.
salishtens as we'll as interests the pas
they are shle 10 inteiligently critics, thi
OF jurors when they know something I'D
case.
As IS well known. the metropolitan nsz
have been largely instrumental in ss,rs
conviction OF many Noted criminals al
ssrthing many Of the most horrible orirsl
but for their efforts would have reusinsit
covered.
The faults OF our courts must Be lssi:
elsewhere than ID our jury system and
laws. They are amply sufficient to NET Il
ge1cies- II anything IS wrong, It is 10 Z
pliestion and enforcement Of these hVs
prosecuting attorneys are underpaid *
assistance from the newspapers and al:
fecfiyes and should work up their oass =
much care and research as arc shown By X
yeTs conducting the defense Respectful
E I. BIS