Evening star., 1907-11-13
tPhotos by Harris Ewing)

/ tile accused
/ Have YOU any bias for or against her?
DO you know of any reason why you
cannot give the accused a fair and inn
partial trial?
Have YOU any conscientious scruples
against capital punishment?
In case you believed. beyond reason
able doubt. that a defendant was guilty
of murder in the first degree. would you
have any hesitation in returning verdict
. carrying with ii the death penalty where
the defendant is a woman?
Would it make any difference if YOU
believed beyond a reasonable doubt that
she was guilty of murder in the first
degree?
son Ia take the law in his or her own
hands TO avenge his or her own injuries?
By the Defense.
BY Mr.. Hoover:
You read something about this case in
the newspapers about the time of its
occurrence?
You formed no opinion as to the guilt
| or innocence of the defendant?
You have no opinion at this time?
If YOU were selected as a Juror in this
case would you go into the jury box and
after nearing the evidence, and the law
as given to you by the court, would YOU
try the case fairly and impartially?
II you were selected a juror in this
snow
there had been a shooting and the de-
/ tense offered should be insanity would
you resolve in favor of the defendant
any reasonable doubt to which the law
would entitle herr"
Regular Panel Called First.
The jurors of the regular panel who
were first called to the box included
James L. Feeney, Fritz Herzog, David NJ.
Lea Haywood Hicks. Henry Bredekamp,
Frank NJ Hodges. William ]. Thomas,
Charles j. Althof, William E. Reiss.
Daniel Crumbaugh, Frank S. Iseman and
John M. Abbott. United States Attorney
Baker undertook the examination ~
talesmen. James L. Feeney being first to
reply to the interrogations. He stated his
| occupation to be a printer and publisher.
He is native of New York, but has been
resident of the District for twenty-one
years Mr.. Feeney had read about the
case in the newspapers, but had neither
formed nor expressed an opinion concern
ing Mrs. Bradley's guilt or innocence He
mad no prejudice against capital punish
ment. even though the defendant should
oe woman The questions asked by At
lorney Hoover, for the defense. concerned
particularly any prejudice which mig Il
exist in the jurors mind regarding the
Offering Of insanity as defense. Mr..
FeeneE had no such prejudice, and he was
permitted to be seated at least tepno
rariy, in the jury box
+ ritz Herzog, restaurateur: Haywood
ticks. grocer; Henry Bridekamp. bar.
Ger; Frank NJ. Hodges, grocer. and Will
lam j. Thomas. student, apparently were
also satisfactory, and they were seated
Believes in Higher Law.
With David NJ. Lea, an insurance agent.
the first obstacle was encountered He
believed in the higher law he said, and
United States Attorney Bakers pursuit
of the question brought out the state
ment from Mr.. Lea that he fully an
proved of what was done In a recent case
at Culpeper Va.
We challenge for cause" the United
States attorney said
Attorney Hoover drew from the tales
man that he would render a true verdict
upon the evidence" and that he would
resolve in favor of the defendant any
reasonable doubt to which the la
showed her TO be entitled
Justice Stafford took hand in the o,es
tionins, and to his query Mr.. Lea an
sWered that his mind would be slower
70 arrive at a conclusion in such a case.
The challenge for cause was then sus-
talned' ana samuel j. Gray took the seat
vacated by Mr. Lea.
William +. Reiss also drew more than
the usual number of queries on account
OF his answer that particularly strong
evidence would be necessary before he
would believe in returning q verdict ot
guilty of murder in the first degree. He
was finally permitted TO retain d seat in
the box "
Frank :. Iseman. timer; Daniel Crun-
baush real estate dealer. John Abbott
grocer, and Charles Althof, baker were
satisfactorily seated and the jury seemed
on the point of being completed, when
Samuel ]. Gray, co .ored, a caterer of 1906
" street, stated he was prejudiced aga INST
the defense of insanity
What do you mean by that? uueried
Mr.. Hoover.
Well il seems in all such cases the
.irst plea is that the person was insane
when the deed was done Gray replied
The talcsman added that he would ba Sc
any verdict in which he might concur on
The law and the evidence. but Attorney
Hoover challenged for cause and the cha
lenge was sustained by Justice Stafford
James Nash. an ice dealer of 9th and
Water streets, took the vacant seat and
he answered the queries of counsel or
both sides satisfactorily and the box was
Alled
First Challenge by Government.
The government will first exercise the
right of challenge" Justice Stafford d.
reCted. and United States Attorney Baker
excused Mr.. Iseman. George c. Pendleton
was next summoned, but his plea that he
be excused from service, because of i'm
pending removal from the city, was
granted, and Joseph D. Sniffen was seated
after answering the queries Of the at
torneys. Haywood Hicks was challenged
by the defense and Edward A. Bickerton
a bicycle dealer. seated in his stead
Frank NJ. Hodges was excused by the
government, and Jesse Jenkins. a bar.
tender, filled the vacancy.
Mr.. Bredekamp excused" Mr.. Hoover
said and the interrogatories were re-
peated. and all answered. evidently to the
satisfaction of both sides. by George
Menke, butter merchant in the Center
market. Daniel a. Newman succeeded
Joseph D. Sniffen when the latter was
challenged by the government.
Challenge Mr.. Thomas" Mr.. Hoover
remarked, when 1t came the turn of the
defense TO announce its satisfaction OF
dissatisfaction with the jury. and more
than the usual difficulty was experienced
in filling the seat.
Walter Baum, a merchant OF 1907
18th street was the first of the special
panel to be called, and he had scru.
pies against capital punishment, ano
had formed opinion which woulC
influence his Judgment in the jury box
Consequently he was excused for cause
and a this point court adjourned fol
. the midday recess.