State v. Clary, 20870

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
Writing for the CourtLAND, J.
Citation136 La. 589,67 So. 376
PartiesSTATE v. CLARY et al
Decision Date08 February 1915
Docket Number20870

67 So. 376

136 La. 589

CLARY et al

No. 20870

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 8, 1915

PROVOSTY, J., holds that when opportunity to communicate secretly with the jurors, so as to exercise an improper influence upon them if desired, is shown, the burden is shifted to the state to show that the opportunity was not availed of, and that this burden is not discharged by calling the jury up and asking them whether they have been improperly influenced. The influenced juror would , of course, never confess to the fact.O'NIELL, J., dissents.

OPINION [67 So. 377]

[136 La. 591] On Rehearing.


The defendants were indicted for murder and convicted of manslaughter.

Counsel for the defendants admitted in his argument on rehearing that the jury was composed of intelligent and high-minded men, and that there was no separation of the jury.

The facts stated in the second paragraph of our original opinion in this case show that the verdict of manslaughter was favorable to the accused.

The third paragraph of the opinion states in general terms the defendants' numerous objections to the conduct of the jury and the bailiffs who had them in charge.

The jurors were lodged and boarded at [136 La. 592] the Monroe Hotel, and were compelled to walk to and from the courthouse, situated in the next square, and were always in charge of two or more bailiffs. They took their meals in a small room connected with the main dining room by an arched doorway. Their conversations with the waitresses had nothing to do with the case on trial, and the same may be said of all greetings and remarks between the jurors and other persons. During the long trial of eight days in the midst of July, the jurors were taken twice to picture shows with the permission of the judge below. No objection was made by defendants to the allowance of such recreation to the jurors. At neither of the shows was any communication shown to have taken place between outsiders and the jurors, except on one occasion, when the young daughter of Juror Speed told him how sorry she and her mother were for him, meaning his detention on the jury. As to packages and valises sent to certain jurors, each of them testified positively that they contained nothing but wearing apparel. A few notes sent to members of the jury were shown not to relate to the case on trial.

In State v. Oteri, 128 La. 939, 55 So. 582, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 878, this court held that a verdict and sentence...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT