The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-06-22
ABOLISH CAUSE ADMITTED.

The course of Judge Moore in sem
fencing the jury tamperers to Jail and
binding them over to court for emu
bracery shows clearly his feeling and
his purpose to protect his court from
wrong. There were those in plenty, how
ever. who considered that the Judge
made a mistake, as soon as the dis
closure was first made by Juror King
in not at once closely questioning
every juror on the panel and thus as
certaining as nearly as possible the
extent to which work of the sort done
by Rogers and Sorrell had been car
ried. For some reason he did not take
this course, and so far as known only
three jurors were questioned at ALL If
it had not been for what looks on its
face TO be an unwise rule of court
procedure, however. at least all of the
jurors on the panel below Mr.. King
would have been put on a searching
examination by counsel independently
of the judge.
The rule referred to is the practice
Of permitting one side to an action to
admit the cause when a juror has
been challenged by the other side.
In consequence attorneys were
afraid to challenge and question a
juror lest the other side should admit
the cause" and stand him aside. Con-
sequently there was no examination
at the time when the circumstances
III
AS an instance, Immediately after
Mr.. King had made his disclosure and
been stood aside, Colonel Argo asked
Juror Byrum whether or not he had
been approached by any one. The
juror was never permitted to answer.
Cause admitted" said Mr. Pou. and
the juror was compelled under the
rule to leave tho box
But aside from the disadvantage
apparent in the Gattis-Kilgo case,
which was of course an exceptional
occasion. it seems to us that the rule
is not based either on sound sense or
in the best interests of justice. The
theory of permitting challenges to
jurors as to their competency to serve
was made primarily i'm favor of the
tablishes certain conditions without
:; which 1T says that juror.
5 is iicotnpelent sf IS 81 8 bjected sto.
III ne sf5siffd = at ter djaestioiafng
To fit the requirements, there are al
lowed to each party certain preremp-
GO. fn .ho of
surfing him justice and to permit him
10 that extent to exercise any per-
sonal or fancied dislike that he may
bear the proposed juror. But TO per-
NIT party to admit cause" upon
the asking of a question touching the
jurors competency under the law is
merely TO Increase the number of
preremptory challenges and, often to
put one side or the other TO unfair dis
advantage
Suppose. for instance, that an intel
ligent man such as one party thinks
would in the ordinary course make a
GOOD and fair juror comes into the
hcx. He is, however. asked the per-
fectly proper question as to whether
or net he has formed and expressed
an opinion en- the case. The other
side 9houts at once cause admitted"
and the juror must stand aside. al
though he may have been in every re-
spect the most well qualified and UNI
prejudiced man on the panel
The law of New York we under
stand. and of some other jurisdic-
items. permits full examination and
does not recognize this practice of
admitting cause For the sake of
obtaining good and intelligent jurors
as we'll as for saving the time of
courts with crowded dockets, there
is room for similar statute in North
Carolina.
Governor Folk received all his hon.
ors because he prosecuted prominent
and influential criminals. Every
prosecuting attorney ought TO read the
story of Folks courageous discharge