Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1916-07-20

The examination of the first lot
of men drawn as jury to try John
Mueller for the murder of Valentine
Hens, Continued throughout Friday
afternoon and today
The first questions asked of the
men drawn, related to their person
al acquaintance with the family of
the alleged murderer or that of his
victim. The question of whether or
not any of the jurymen had discuss
ed the murder and had formed an
opinion as to Mueller's guilt, was
also asked in every case, and sew
eral were excused because of their
knowledge of the case.
Among those thus excused were
w. D. Putnam, publisher of the
newspaper at Streeter, and Jacob
Zimmerman of Gackle. The former
felt that he was disqualified because
he had made thorough investiga-
ton of the murder at tbs time it
was committed.
Zimmerman is of Russian birth.
He naively admitted that he had
been approached by witnesses for
the state and was acquainted with
the Hens family.
Ole Anderson of Medina stated
that he had talked with parties to
the case and with witnesses concern
ing the case. He was excused.
Bert Schmuhl of Windsor was ex-
cused without comment after he had
admitted that Thorp & Chase had
acted as his attorneys and that he
had had differences with John
Knauf.
The attorneys for the defense fre-
quently asked questions intended to
bring out the jurors attitude of
mind toward insanity, uncontrol-
liable anger, or passion, as a ground
of defense.
"If the court should instruct you
that he was insane, if the act was
done when insane, would you, under
instructions from the court, find him
not guilty?" was a question which
was asked, in effect, of nearly every
one examined. All answered in the
affirmative.
"If a man were in such condi-
tion that he was irresponsible, would
you be willing to give him the ben
eft of the doubt?" was also asked
by Atty, Arthur Knauf of the de-
fense.
1t is understood that there are
several lines of defense that is is
possible for Mueller to follow. Some
have felt that it was very probable
that the extenuating circumstances
surrounding the alleged crime would
be offered in defense, showing
that Mueller was of excellent char
acter and had a great provocation.
That insanity may be claimed to
have been the temporary condition
of Mueller at the time of the alleged
crime is strongly indicated by the
frequent asking of the questions
quoted above.
The prosecution has taken pains
to bring out the distinction between
the law and fact, and has attempted
to impress upon the jurors that they
are to Judge as to the facts, but
that the court is, as far as this trial
is concerned, the source of law.
Attorney Thorp also questioned
the veniremen very closely in regard
to their impartiality. He endeavor-
ed to discover any prejudice that
might exist against him or In favor
of the attorneys for the defence. He
emphasized their duty to be impair
tial because they we're to perform a
part as officers of the court. He told
the jurors that it would undoubted-
ly bs an unpleasant duty if they had
to render verdict contrary to their
feelings. But if you are convinced
that this young man has committed
this crime," he added, you will do
your duty and convict him even it
you hate to do it, If you feel bad
about it," In general, he received
a prompt affirmative to his ques-
tions.
L. N. Cadieux, however, stated
that he did not believe in convicting
a, man on circumstantial evidence,
when his life was at stake. He would
want positive, direct evidence that
someone had seen the act commit
ted. This statement brought forth
some exposition Of the relative i'm
portance of circumstantial and d.
rect evidence, and Cadieux finally
agreed that he would be guided by
the direction Of the court in weigh
ing evidence submitted.
Cadieux was led to modify his
statement Of strong antipathy +