The daily sentinel., 1908-06-29

formed no opinion on the case, al
though he had talked it over and
read about it, he had formed no
opinion on the case.
James Clark of Palisade also re-
ceived the o. k. of the prosecution.
He had an opinion on the case, he
said. but 1t was one that could be
changed " the evidence. He said he
had once before served on a jury
in a homicide case.
j. NJ. Fritz of Grand Juno
ton, although he was not in Colo
RADIO at the time of the Collins mur-
der and had formed no opinion on
it, was disqualified because of his
possession of conscientious scruples
against the death penalty.
George Young. a farmer. moved
here since the Collins murder. He
had read about ii since, but had
formed no opinion.
Walter Farmer. who has lived on
a Hannah creek ranch for % years,
said he had no opinion on the case
that could not be changed by the
evidence.
C. p. Edgerly Of DeBeque
likewise said that he had no opinion
on the case, and could render just
and impart al verdict
Attorney Selig then passed the 12
men in the jury box for cause, and
Judge Hilton took up the cross ex-
animation of the 2 good men and
true.
In cross examining Mr.. Severson
who had admitted that he had
formed an opinion from what he had
read in the newspapers, Judge Hill
ton asked:
"Do you usually believe what you
see in the newspapers?"
met always" answered Mr.. Sew
erson, amid the chuckles of the court
room.
1t developed. however, that in this
case he had believed the newspapers
and had formed an opinion that he
said might influence his decision. He
was therefore challenged by the de-
fense. and excused, though the pros
ecution resisted.
j. +. Talley of Fruita was called
TO fill Mr.. Severson's chair. Exam
ined by Mr.. Carnahan for the prose-
cution. he said he was native of
Tennessee. but has lived in Mesa
county for 10 years. He declared
that, though he had read about the
case and talked about 1t, he had new
er expressed an opinion as to the
guilt or innocence of the defendant,
ana Hul no ScTuDleS against the IN
Fiction of the death penalty.
Cross examined by Judge Hilton,
Mr.. Talley said that he had served
as juror in murder case in Mesa
county four years ago; was. there
fore, familiar with the procedure OF
such cases, and could. therefore, say
with considerable certainty that he
felt himself qualified to sit in this
case and give his decision according
to the law and the evidence.
Judge Hilton's examination became
rather technical. The witness was
not required to define Reasonable
doubt" the defense having objected
to the question; but the court per
mitted him to answer whether h,
knew what was meant by "presump
tive innocence"
Mr.. Talley said he had been served
with the venire to appear in thi
case on Thursday, whereupon judge
Hilton exploded a bomb-shell by chal
lenging the juror for cause.
Both Judge Shackleford and tn,
prosecution seemed rather non
plussed at this move.
Judge Hilton read the statute re
quiring veniremen to be served fiv,
days before they are required to ap
pear in court.
cution said that, If the venire wer
not properly made. the proper pro
ceeding was not to challenge 70
cause, but to proceed in the usua
manner to offer objections to tn
venire.
Judge Hilton retorted that part o
the venire is properly served. ant
that hence the only proceeding opel
to the defense is to challenge eacl
individual venireman who was no
served at least five days ago.
Attorney hogg Tor the prosecu
ton contended that the provision i
the statute relates to the regula
Venre, whereas this was an ope
venire, "and 1t would be absurd,
said Mr. Hogg, that the same rule
would apply to an open as to the res
ular venire.'
And, after all, Judge Shacklefor
was not compelled to pass upon tn