The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1911-10-20

We'll, would It be the nrBt impress
sion OF your nind?'
The state objected and the court
sustained the objection.
would you, If it should be proved
the Times was destroyed by dyna-
mite, deem it a material question that
the defendant was a member of Or
ganized labor and would you take It
into consideration in judging his
guilt"
Irrelevant and immaterial," inter
jected District Attorney Fredericks,
and the court sustained it.
If 1t were disclosed to you during
the trial that the Times was destroyed
by dynamite and human agency, would
II give any weight at all to the fact
that the defendant was q member of
organized labor?"
The objection OF the prosecuting at
torney was here overruled.
No" was Robinson's answer.
80 If it were proved that the de-
PENDANT was a member of organized
labor you could disregard that fact?"
Yes"
And you will do so if chosen as a
Juror"
Yes"
You said yesterday that you had
Expressed your views to certain people
On the case; what were those views?
mind as to how it was destroyed"
Did you discuss whether II was dy-
Mantle or gas2'
mo"
You said yesterday that you had a
version Of 1t; what was this?"
Simply that 1 did not know how II
was destroyed"
The Mcnamara murder trial was re-
sumed today at the beginning Of a
new court calendar week with pros
poets that in the course Of the session
Judge Bordwell would rule on two per-
emptory challenges made yesterday by
the defense on the ground that a tales
man who believes that the Los An
geles Times building was blown up by
dynamite cannot be fair Juror. This
position is taken because of the de-
fenss's position that the explosion in
the Times building was caused by gas
and that counsel defending Jas. B.
McNamara, on trial for the murder of
Chas. G. Hggerty, who was killed In
the disaster, should not be compelled
to show otherwise in order to get
fair trial The state contends that so
long as any juror has no opinion as to
McNamra's guilt or innocence, he may
be a fair juror. Judge Bordwell, II
was explained, needed not to rule on
the point until the jury is filed with
talesmen. not otherwise ineligible for
cause, from the standpoint Of the de
Tense. But as the question brought
up on Tuesday has been open ever
since 1t was considered he would ter
inmate II today. There is much worl;
ahead before a jury is empanelled re-
gardless OF the way the court may
rule. The defense. which tentatively
has passed every taleSman as to cause
but may return to some OF them, Will
continue until the quota OF twelve Is
obtained. Then the state, under DIS
trict Attorney John d. Fredericks, will
go over the twelve, to see If any are
to be challenged for cause
Whenever one man is successfully
challenged another win take his place
and the defense VIII first examine him.
followed by the state. When finally
twelve men, all having escaped sue
cessful challenge for cause, are IN the
jury box each side Will have the privi-
lege Of peremptory challenge. OF these
the state has ten and the defense 20.
The state Will challenge first, then the
defense and SO on alternately until the
states ten peremptoTy challenges are
used up. This will leave the defense
with ten challenges to be used on
other tales1nen as they replace those
peremptorily removed In many in
stances under this procedure the court
decisions show that the pinch comes
on the last man, where all peremptory
and to challenge for cause IS not al
lowed. All appeals thus far cited have
been in such instances.
Beyond this, II at any time in the
trial reason is found, or thought to
have been found for challenge for
cause such challenge may be made.
If II is granted another juror must be