Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1911-10-14

admonished other venlremen fr ID.
room not 10 read papers or Z. ..n1
verse about the case among .l.m.
selves
Those IN the jury box as Won "a. tbs
. Vrnircmen were then asked Do. ,be
court 20 leave the chamber urH .
/ O'Clock, while argument was ...rs
conducted between counsel Tor U.tb
sides as to what extent the n
could examine yeniremen
This Is the first juror" began r.s.
trict Attorney Fredericks, "auH 7
doubt whether we VIII ever get ..r.
or who has not formed some opinion
on this case"
He then cited California ..s.s
where challenges were not allowed
where Jurors had declared theg had
formed an opinion,
A battle Of precedent cases Is.
tween the attorneys cusued.
Judge Bordwell declared ne would
welcome extensive argument on tho
subject
What barrow Thinks Of Nelson. &.
Nelson has prejudice first against
labor unions said Mr. barrow.
Then he has a fixed opinion in ths
case which could pot ba rer,o,.5 wv
cent by strong evidence Ar, I'M.
being can see by his answers that lie
has studied the case. lie has ag
opinion, too, that the building was
blown by dynamite. | say he Is there
fore an incomnetent tpror ly C,-.
fornia law or the law Of any civilized
community"
MT Darro", citing a case where
VenireInan had admitted strong pre-
judice and had been disqualified, falr-
ly shouted when he said:
ut would Doe hard TO find juror
more preJudlced anywhere on amy
case than this man Nelson and set
the state would ask that the challenge
De dlSalloWed.'
Mr. barroW gardually warmed ~
To MS argument condemniug the pos-
slblty ol admitting as Jurymcn Ng-
niremen such as Nelson.
The common law he declared,
would not allow such Jurors and a..
lords The defendant protection. And,
he needs II II any defendant ever did
in the state of California
Mr DarroW also added that a case
Of bias instanced in the state supreme
court decision was weak as d..h
water" compared with the attitude
Of 'Venircman Nelson"
Recess was taken at 1910 O'Clock
until D. m.
Grand Jury's Final R.rort
A, ,ho .,,.i,,. i.
.i,,, 80 ,,'.>5....... .'., '''''7
grand iury convened nearly y.sr
ago and in continuous session since
that time, made its final report and
was discharged. This is the Jury
which returned all the indictments
and conducted the Investigation f1l-
lowing the Los Angeles Times build
ing explosion. October |, 1910. Ii
was convened October 22. 1910
Court reconvened at 2:1O o'clock.
Judge Bordwell announced that the
veniremen were excused until Mon
day morning. MIR. Darrow for the
defense resumed reading from cases
where talesmen had admitted that 1t
would take great deal to change
their opinions.
But outside Of statute or decision"
argued Mr.. Darrow. the defendant
has a constitutional right and tba
defendant should be given the benefit
Of any doubt. Even if the statuta
here said nothing about the impar-
tlality of the Jury. the defendant has
a right to a trial by Jury of twelve i'm
partial men. who are not preiudiced
in the case "
An ,,,o.,,,, ,D,so.,,,,,,
Deiihihs such' ne asserted that lhe
eo','''io'i ID" au'olia'icaiIE u'squall-
.leu 'alesiiian VINO nau previously
49,. '''e' d" op'''o" as u 'ne gum VI
''''apeenOe ..Je oi prisoner
- any ,"'"s can De SaIu ior Ju'-
VI al'ei li'e u''era"ceS OF 'he various
courts we "oulu ne interested 10
near IT, continued Mr' barrow, anu
never Del"re nave seen, your hohor'
IL" oiiICe' Vi tne state ASK that Jur'
o. suci as nelson VINO ADMITTED he
iau precohceNed prejudice Whlch
II "oulu take strong evidence TO re-
i'oNe' pe accepted
mat 'he ueiehSe would CONSIDER the
acceptance ol Nelson an application
LOT appeaI was ihdicated frankly py