The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-03-24
AS TO OUR JURORS
Judge H. G. Conner on
Interference With
-Jurymen.

Associate Justice Conner, in writing the
opinion of the Supreme Court, granting a
new trial to George Daniels, who appeal
ed from judgment of murder in the
first degree for the killing of William
Maxwell in Duplin county, has the fol-
lowing to say on the subject Of interior
ence with Jurors:
1--WE concur with his honors Judge
George H. Brown ruling upon the motion
to set aside the verdict for improper con-
duct on the part of the father Of the de-
ceased and OF some Of the jurors. We
are quiteA ure that his honor felt as we do
that such conduct was exceedingly i'm
proper and calculated to shake confidence
in the integrity OF the verdict, so far
at least as one of the jurors was con.
cerned. The absolute, unouestioned and
unquestionable integrity of jurors in bas-
ing their verdicts upon the law and the
evidence is of such vast and vital i'm
portance to suitors and people, that any
conduct which casts upon it the slightest
suspicion merits severe condemnation
from the courts. While the ancient Gus
tom of keeping the jury in close con
fnement without meat or drink has teen
abandoned, we should be careful to see
to it that, while em9aneled. and in q
way set apart from the public. to true
deGverance make between the State and
the prisoner, the strlcteSt vigilance be
had to protect them from suggestions
or approach by interested persons. The
conduct of the father of the deceased
was calculated to arouse suspicion that
he desired to exert some influence over
some of the jurors. The judge cannot, in
the discharge of his duties. keep q jury
at all times in his presence, and is direct
ed to place them in charge of a sworn
officer. 1T is the duty of the officer to
promptly report to the judge any improper
conduct on the part OF jurors or other
persons in this respect. Judges are often
embarrassed to find, after long and eXpen-
sive trials. yerdictS In capital cases
brought into question by improper conduct
of the jury often the result of thought
lessness, too frequently not so easily ex
planned. While we approve the course
pursued by his honor. we feel, in view of
the frequency with which these questions
are brought to our attention upon appeals
that it would be well to enforce the law
by punishment for contempt, questionable
conduct by and towards jurors while en-
gagged in the trial of capital felOnies.'
1t seems that the motion for new trial
On the ground of misconduct of the jury
was based upon the following facts:
During the progress of the trial, and
becore the charge of the court, the jury
in body was carried by the officer In |
charge to DR.. Jones Office for medical |!
treatment to one juror. While there some |
person walked up and spoke to two of the |
Jurors, and shook hands with them and |
talked a minute or more, and the jury |
walked away in one direction and he |
walked off in the other. The court was |
Unable to ascertain who the person was,
md to whom he spoke. The court found |
upon the testimony of the officers and |
,wo jurors that W. H Maxwell, father
IF deceased, was passing by the jury on
he street, bowed to the juror Holdings
worth, and extended his hand and the
Juror shook it, but no word was passed.
The court found that on another day,
)cfore the charge was delivered, Maxwell
passed the jury and shook hands with
JUROR Miller as he passed, but no word
vas spoken.