Commonwealth v. Burroughs
| Citation | 145 Mass. 242,13 N.E. 884 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH SAME v. BURROUGHS. SAME v. BARTLETT. SAME v. KENNEDY. |
| Decision Date | 22 November 1887 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
John Hopkins, for defendant Burroughs.
The duty of the court with reference to the examination of jurors is determined by Pub.St. c. 170, § 35. The right of the objecting party is given him by the same section. The right of the objecting party is not limited by the preliminary questions suggested in the statute. He may introduce any other competent evidence in support of his objection. He is not concluded by the answers to the preliminary questions. He may seek from the juror himself evidence. The right of a defendant to make inquiry of the juror as to his connection with an association fund for the purpose of enforcing the law which he is charged with violating, is recognized in Com v. Livermore, 4 Gray, 18. The duty of the court with reference to a juror so connected is plainly defined. See Com. v. Livermore, above cited. The questions proposed to be asked the jurors in the case at bar were well calculated to determine whether or not the several jurors were members of the association referred to in them, and, if answered in the affirmative, would have established the fact of their incompetency. Com. v. Moore, 143 Mass. 136, 9 N.E 25.
John R Thayer, for defendant Bartlett.
A member of a law and order league has been held incompetent to sit as a juror on trial for breaking liquor law in case where the complaint was instituted by an agent of the league. Com. v. Moore, 143 Mass. 136, 9 N.E. 25. The principle of this decision extends to the case at bar. See also, Com. v. Livermore, 4 Gray, 18. By section 25, c. 170, Pub.St., it is provided that, after putting to a jury the prescribed questions upon motion of a party, either party may introduce evidence to support his objections. A party should be allowed to ask a juror the first question stated in the bill of exceptions. It is the best evidence of the fact, and may be the only evidence which can be obtained on the point to question the juror himself. It having been decided that membership in a law and order league is a disqualification for a juror, it is incumbent on a judge to put that question to a juror upon request, as well as those specified in the statute, and not a matter of discretion.
D.F. O'Connell, for defendant Kennedy
The members of any association of men combining for the purpose of enforcing the execution of a particular law, and binding themselves to contribute money for such purpose, cannot be held to be indifferent, and ought not to be permitted to sit as jurors in the trial of a cause in which the question is whether the defendant shall be found guilty of violating that law. Com. v. Livermore, 4 Gray, 18. A member of a voluntary association formed for the enforcement in a certain city of the laws against the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, and for the prosecution of violations of such laws, is incompetent to sit as a juror on the trial of a complaint for such violation instituted by an agent of the association, who is furnished by it with money to pay his expenses in carrying on the work, and is also paid for his services. Com. v. Moore, 143 Mass. 136, 9 N.E. 25.
A.J. Waterman, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
The ruling of the court was correct. Pub.St. c. 170, § 35 clearly provides that the court, upon request, shall (i.e., must) ask a specified juror four distinct questions. This the court did in the present case. Thus far there appears to be no discretionary power on the part of the court. Up to this point the party requesting this examination is not obliged to do more than make the request. This is a general provision, applicable alike to all cases, aimed to provide a fair and impartial jury. Com. v. Moore, 143 Mass. 137, 9 N.E. 25; Com. v. Thrasher, 11 Gray, 55; Com....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Di Stasio
...prospective juror himself can be questioned only as the statute provides ‘under the direction of the court.’ Commonwealth v. Burroughs, 145 Mass. 242, 243, 13 N.E. 884. This salutary practice cannot be evaded by the simple expedient, adopted by the defendant in the case at bar, of filing a ......
-
Commonwealth v. Di Stasio
...... ‘ other competent evidence’ of want of. impartiality, implies that the prospective juror himself can. be questioned only as the statute provides ‘ under the. [294 Mass. 281] . direction of the court.’ Commonwealth v. Burroughs, 145 Mass. 242, 243, 13 N.E. 884. . . This. salutary practice cannot be evaded by the simple expedient,. adopted by the defendant in the case at bar, of filing a. written challenge ‘ to the array’ on the ground. that the prospective jurors had been deprived of ......
-
Commonwealth v. Sherman
...the scope of the motion in support of his objection to this individual juror. See G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 234, § 28; Commonwealth v. Burroughs, 145 Mass. 242, 243, 13 N.E. 884;Commonwealth v. Cero, 264 Mass. 264, 271, 162 N.E. 349;Commonwealth v. Millen (Mass.) 194 N.E. 463. And it is at least dou......
-
Commonwealth v. Sherman
......DiStasio (Mass.) 1 N.E.(2d) 189.Nor. did the defendant introduce or offer or propose to offer any. ‘ other competent evidence’ beyond the scope of. the motion in support of his objection to this individual. juror. See G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 234, § 28; Commonwealth v. Burroughs, 145 Mass. 242, 243, 13 N.E. 884;. Commonwealth v. Cero, 264 Mass. 264, 271, 162 N.E. 349; Commonwealth v. Millen (Mass.) 194 N.E. 463.And. it is at least doubtful whether statements of counsel for the. defendant at the hearing on the present motion can be. regarded as an offer, or a ......