Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-04-21
CASEDAY MUST HANG.
Continued from Page 81

Continued from Page 81
a fixed opinion as to the merits of
the case which it would require
strong testimony to overthrow and
which would prevent the parties
starting on an equal race in the trial,
but that if accepted as jurors they
could lay aside such prejudice and
try the case fairly and impartially.
This court reversed the circuit
court on this point with the state
ment that "as we remember the testi-
mony given at the former trial by
Mrs Curtis, who heard the fatal
shots fired that made her widow,
We do not believe any persons could
listen to her recital of the facts with
out forming such an opinion as to
render him biased as to the merits of
the case. Nor could a person hear
the witnesses or the jurors tell the
story Of the homicide, as it was un-
folded in court, without forming such
an opinion as to the guilt or inno-
cence of the defendant as to render
him prejudiced in the matter"
Intelligent men having any local
interest in such an occurrence as a
supposed murder will usually form
an opinion about the merits by read
ing newspaper accounts and hearing
the average neighborhood discussion
of the subject. The administration
of justice would become impossible
if such an opinion of itself disquali-
fed juror. This is the reason un-
derlying section 1913, L. o. L., supra.
An opinion may be satisfactory to
the man being examined as a juror,
considering the fact that hitherto he
has sustained no relation to the case
different from any other citizen Of
the county. While he occupies that
standpoint only, he may require tes-
timony before changing his opinion.
Under such circumstances his op1n-
ion may be in a sense fixed, because
he has had no occasion to think
otherwise. When a talesman having
that attitude of mind is being ex-
amined the question is whether, upon
assuming the particular relation OF
juror in the case as distinguished
from his previous general relation
as a member of the community, he
will abandon the concomitants OF the
latter and submit himself to the con-
ditions and obligations of the former
The doctrine Of the statute is that
the two relations are not necessarily
Incompatible but that to disqualify
such Juror "the court must be sat
isfed, from all the circumstances,
that the Juror cannot disregard such
opinion and try the issue impartial
ly"
The examination of Allen, Cook
and Howard reveals mental state
in them widely different from that OF
the jurors under consideration in the
of State " Miller, supra. There
they had attended the trial and heard
the testimony, had talked in detali
with witnesses and jurors OF for
mer trial and had in effect quite
thoroughly tried and determined the
issue, substantially traversing the
same course to be then pursued IN
the new trial. The tentative opin-
ions of the jurors here fall far shor'
of the standard of actual bias estao-
lished in that decision. In the las'
analysis, jury service is voluntary
duty owing from the people TO tne
government of the people The pro-
cess Of the court may bring before II
any citizen as a juror, but if he is un'
willing to serve, he can with impun'
ity easily display such a state o.