The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-04-27
JURORS SHOW
PREJUDICE IN
SWEET TRIAL
barrow May Ask Case
Be Tried Elsewhere
CONTINUED from Page u

(COnLlnued from Page -
right of Darrow to ask any question
which might lead to exposure of pre-
judice on the part Of the Juror being
examined. Darrow continued his ques-
tions in spite OF another interruption
by MOL. which met with the same
override by Judge Murphy.
Trial Halted as Minutes.
Bonner was followed by another
juror who almost Immediately dis
qualified, and then Phillip J. Savage
took the chair. barrow asked Savage
if he had any opinion, to which the
answer was made: Il have firm con-
viction that these people attack" and
before the sentence was completed,
barrow, shrieking with rage charged
him to shut up and then he (Darrow)
addressed the court with the remark:
IL don't know whether it is an ar
rangement between certain people or
not that jurymen should make such
remarks
He further said that the Juror
should be charged with contempt of
court for the prejudicial statement,
whereupon Mol sprang to his feet and
entered into the controversy that
caused a halt in proceedings for As
minutes. Judge Murphy, after a
moments counsel with the attorneys,
retired with both the defense and
prosecution behind closed doors to
thrash out the matter.
When they returned, Judge Murphy
addressed the jurymen in the box and
in the unexamined panel to the effect
that they were to be absolutely un-
affected by the statements made by
the preceding jurors and that they
we're to refrain Ito unexamined jurors)
from making any prejudicial state
ments when questioned by attorneys.
That they were to answer either yes
or no, or in such a manner as to con.
vey an intelligent answer without
stating their opinion, If they had one.
You are not supposed to state the
nature of that opinion, or that pre-
1udice. Simply state that you have an
opinion or prejudice if you have one.
You must not say anything that is
defamatory or that is prejudicial." He
further stated that their duty as jury
men was to form an opinion only on
the testimony given in the trial and
not from any other source, and to
bring a verdict based on this testimony
combined with the law. Jurors in the
box were told that they were not to
gather any differences of prejudicial
nature from anything that has been
said with reference to preceding jury
mem.
Possible Change Of Venue.
At the beginning of the trial, the
regular panel of 1O2 jurymen were
placed in the box. After these names
were exhausted without the necessary
twelve jurymen having been agreed
upon, a special panel of 81 more was
summoned. This special panel was
exhausted yesterday and another spe-
cial panel of Sc more were called.
It is believed that this panel will
also be exhausted without the jury
being selected. In this event, it is
probable that the court will order Of
ficers to go into the streets and sum-
mon the first persons available. Oar
row is relentless in his desire to have
a jury absolutely free from racial
r,rofudfoa ord roado fba -4ofapoa,4 ~ -
there is a possibility of his moving
for a change Of venue.
Many of the jurymen have already
read of the case, and many Of them
have formed set opinions. This fact
has disqualified a large number Of
jurymen who might not have been
prejudiced on the racial issue.
seIf-Defense Plea Of Sweet.
From the emphasis barrow and
Chawke have placed on the question
as to whether the jurymen believed
in the right Of a man to defend him
self, it is indicated that the basis Of
the defense of Sweet will be self
defense. Darrow asks nearly every
veniremen If he believes a man has
the right to protect himself and his
home regardless of his color. He also
emphasizes the fact that the law
gives Negroes the right to buy proper
ty where they please in Detroit, and a
man the right of defending himself
and his property. To this statement
one juryman said that the legal side
amounted to no more in this case
than It did in the case Of prohibition.
-