The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-11-14

sidered, and that tho presumption OF
innocence, which tile law entitled him
to. until he is proved by legal evidence
to be guilty, Is denied him when the
juror goes into the trial with his
! mind so made up and his opinion so
liked that 1t requires to be changed
by the evidence" This courS has not
yet, petitioner submits, established
such a rule and he trusts that il will
not do so i'll case like the one NJ
bar where human life Is at stake.
III.
The fifth and sixth bills OF excep-
lions relate to The competency of the
Jurors Melville T.. Purdy and ". y
Lundy, and raise the same point about
the effect of evidence like the report
i'll the papers. should such evidence be
introduced, OH the Jurors minds, as
raised In the fourth bill Of exceptions
".
The seventh bill OF exceptions re-
latcs to the competency of the juror
! Thomas a. Hancock. and involves
somewhat the same questions raised in
the fourth bill OF exceptions. This
witness admits (paSe 800 that he
doesn't think 'hc would be able to
try this man Cthe dcfendanD with the
same fairness and impartiality with
which he could try him IL he had
never read those newspaper accounts"
Petitioner submits that no SUISSE
! Tnent statcment as to how much this
! would influence his Judgment or how
fixed his opinion was, should or could
I do away with this clear statement
made during the examination by the
court, and that lie should not have
been accepted by the court as a juror
Your petitioner challenges the pro-
ductton of any case from any court
in which juror who stated to the
court on examination on the ''voir
dire" that he didn't think he would
DC able to try this man tthc defend
rnp with the same fairness and i'm
Partially with which he could try
him II he had never read those papers
was permitted to sit on ii jury.
lie respectfully submits that the
jury, which tried and condemned him
TO death. was not, under the rulings
OF the court complained of herein, such
Il fair, unbiased .and impartial jury as
the law provides, and that he did not
get fair trial, to which he WAS en-
titled: and that due process of law
which includes trial before "A fair and
Impartial jury, was denied him.
There is one observation to be here
made. and which we strongly press,
| which applies equally to The three
preceding exceptions,
In determining the point iprcscn ed
in thc:e exceptions the attitude OF the
| prospective jurors should be consid-
cred in the light of the fact that this
was case which had to be deter
| mined upon circumstautial evidence.
The crucial point, as we take it, in "A
! ease of this character is: given a GER
tain state OF facts OF q certain COM
bination Of Facts are my \3AAS.sntiy
| satisfying To persuade the mind us to
! the guilt of Il suspected person? Now
Ii, prior TO going into the jury box.
a juror had read in the newspapers
what purported 10 be each and all
| OF the circumstances connected with
| the crime which pointed to the de-
| PENDANTS guilt. and 81 upon that com
| bination of circumstances the juror
! had reached the conclusion that they
We're both wclghty and numerous
enough to convince him OF the pris-
| oner's guilt: that they We're absolutely
| Incompatible with his innocence. we
contend that he was an unfit juror.
1t will be found from an examination
! of the evidence Incorporated in the
! fourth, nth. sixth and seventh bills
81 exceptions that each juror stated,
/ In effect. that he had read the news
! paper accounts OF the murder, ana
! that on the statement of facts therein
rccitcd his mind was made up. and
/ II a similar state Of facts developed
during the course OF the trial that
. his mind would then necessarily reach
| exactly the same conclusion.
Quotes Examination.
I Take the Juror Burgess. Exception
/ No. 1. page ~ OF the record and note
that al the top of this page lie testi-
tes that he has an opinion. and that
j II would take evidence TO change It.
/ G. II the same state of facts il
! brought out in evidence as you have
read It in newspapers, then your mind
| is made up?
/ a. Yes. sir.
| q. And II would require different
evidence from what you have got from
/ the newspapers 70 change that opin-
| ion?
| a Certainly
| Here Is what the Juror Purdie Ex-
caption No. 5, page 81 of the record,
said along this line after having ad-
mltted that he had an opinion:
| Q. Now II what develops In the
courtroom Is just the same as you
! have read in the newspapers, II tie
same state OF facts come out, then
you have the same opinion?
| A. Well. yes, sir.
| Q. Is there any doubt in your mind
about that? Are you not positive that
is d fact?
a. Yes. sir
The Juror Lundic, Exception No. 8,