« ZurückWeiter »
statute. In several States the constitution prescribes qualifications; in others it provides for their prescription by the legislature.2
Where the constitution prescribes qualifications, the legislature is powerless to restrict them.3 The legislature may, however, abolish the common law qualifications and provide others. 4
Jurors, to serve in the United States courts in each State, respectively, must have like qualifications as jurors of the highest court of law of such State.5
1. Power to prescribe other than the this matter is not in conflict with the common law requirements by abolish- constitutional provision, nor was it abing the freehold or property qualifica- rogated by the code of practice prior to tions is fully established. See Thomp- the amendment of 1871. Whitehead v. son on Trials, Ø 10.
Wells, 29 Ark. 99 (1874). See Rafe v. 2. The constitution of Tennessee pro State, 20 Ga. 60, and Jesse v. State, 20 vides that no political test can be re- Ga. 156, in regard to the constitutionquired of jurors (c. 1, 6.) And that ality of the act of February 28th, 1856. of Mississippi, that no property quali- A provision in a State constitution fications can be required (c. 1, 13.) that no person shall be eligible as a That of New Hampshire, that great juror who is not entitled to vote and care should be taken that none but hold office applies only to disabilities qualified persons should serve on juries imposed by that constitution, and not and that they should be fully compen- to those imposed by the fourteenth sated (c. 1, 21.) That of Vermont, amendment to the constitution of the that great care should be taken to pre- United States. Sands V. State, 21 vent corruption or partiality in the Gratt. (Va.) 871 (1872). choice of juries, (c. 2, 31.)
4. Kirwin v. People, 96 Ill. 206; Com. By the constitutions of Virginia (c. v. Dorsey, 103 Mass. 403; Byrd v. 3, 3) and Florida (c. 4, 23), no person State, i How. (Miss.) 163; State v. can serve on a jury who is not a quali- Wilson, 48 N. H. 398. fied elector of the State. In Texas (c. The legislature may define the mode 16, 12), California (c. 20, 11), and Ne- of ascertaining such qualifications. vada (c. 4, 27), the legislature is to pass Whitehead v. Wells, 29 Ark. 99. laws excluding persons from serving on in Rhode Island, Gen. Stat., ch. 189, juries in the same cases in which they § 1, the word “liable” is tantamount to are excluded from voting.
"qualified," and the section defines the 3. Maloy
v. State, Tex. 599; qualification of jurors as well as the Brennan v. State, 33 Tex. 266; Wilson liability to serve. State v. Davis, 12 v. State, 35 Tex. 365. Contra, Lester v. State, 2 Tex. App. 432.
Making certain qualifications necesIn Chahoon v. Com., 20 Gratt. (Va.) sary to be possessed by an individual, 733 (1871), it was held, that 0 3 of art. to constitute him a juror, necessarily 3 of the Virginia constitution, which disqualities a person not possessing provides that “all persons entitled to those qualifications, although the vote and hold office, and none others, prisoner assent to his sitting as such. shall be eligible to sit as jurors,” does Guykowski v. People, 2 Ill. (1 Scam.) not operate propria vigore, and with- 476. out any legislation on the subject, to re- 5. Act of congress, July 20th, 1840 peal all existing laws in conflict there. (5 Stats. at L. 394). Literal conformwith, and until such legislature is had, ity to the mode of selecting and drawthe existing law continues in force. ing jurors prescribed by the State laws
In Arkansas, it was held, that the is noi required; substantial conformity provisions of the constitution (1868), is sufficient, and that only as far as prescribing the qualification of jurors practicable. U. S. V. Tallman, did not take from the legislature the Blatchf. (U. S.) 21 (1872). See Sands power to direct in what manner the v. State, 21 Gratt. (Va.) 871 (1872). question of qualification should be de- The act of congress of June 23rd, termined by the courts, and the statute 1873. (18 Stats. at L. 254, ch. 409). (Gould's Dig., ch. 98, § 25) regulating relating to the Territory of Utah, and
R. I. 492.
The common law qualifications relating to residence, property and mental condition have been, some abolished, some greatly modified in England and in the United States.
The qualifications prescribed by statute refer to residence, political status, property, mental condition, tenure of public office, previous service as juror and other circumstances.
Residence and Political Status.—A great variety of qualifications is found in the different States in regard to citizenship and length of residence. The first requisite, in all cases, is residence within the county, sometimes without political privileges.1
It is generally requisite that a juror be an elector of the county.
known as the Poland law, does not v. Jackson, 27 Kan. 581; S. C., 41 Am. profess to prescribe all the qualifica- Rep. 424. tions of jurors in that territory, and it Where it was ascertained after the supersedes and controls the territorial verdict that two of the jurors had vollaws only so far as it prescribes a new untarily borne arms against the govqualification of the same kind as em- ernment of the United States during braced in the territorial law. Conway the war of the rebellion, and, their conv. Clinton, 1 Utah T. 215 (175).
sequent disabilities not having been re1. In Missouri, a person summoned moved, they were not electors of the as a juror had been living in the county State of Kansas, and therefore were about two months, having come thither not proper persons to serve as jurors, from another State, with tie intention this was held not to be an absolute of making it his permanent home. He disqualification; and ground sufficient was held qualified under a statute re- for their discharge from the jury before quiring every juror to be “a male the swearing in, but not sufficient for citizen of the State and a resident of granting a new trial, or for arresting the county." State 7. Francis, 76 Mo. the judgment after the verdict. U. S. 681.
Rev. Stat., 5820; U. S. v. Hammond, In Arkansas, "a resident in the
2 Woods (U. S.) 197. county, and a citizen of the State, is In The People v. Peralta, 4 Cal. 175, competent to serve as a juror, although in construing the act (Stat. 1852,7, § 1), his residence has not been of sufficient which provides that a juror who is not length to confer upon him political an elector of the county for which he is privileges.” Anderson v. State, 5 Ark. summoned is incompetent 444.
(Sampson v. Schaffer, 3 Cal. 107), it In U. S. v. Nardello, 4 Mackey (D. was held that residence (as it affects the C.) 503, it was decided that one who statutes of an elector) depends upon lived in Washington, although he spent intention as well as fact, and mere inhis vacations and voted in Virginia, was habitancy for a short period, without a "resident" of Washington under Dis- the intention of acquiring a domicile, is trict of Columbia Rev. Stat., § 872. insufficient. See also People v. StoneSee also Zickefoose v. Kendall, 12 W. cifer, 6 Cal. 405; Lask v. Ú. S., 1 Pinn. Va. 23; Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W. Va. (Wis. T.) 77 (1839).
The fact that a qualified voter under As to residence in the same town, in the constitution had not paid his poll an action of forcible entry and detainer, tax or registered his name at the time see Dutton v. Tracy, 4 Conn. 79.
of the trial does not make him an inThe provision in a city charter that competent juror in such cause under the jury shall be taken from the free- the registry law, where the time within men of the city and not from the body of which a voter was required to register the county is not repugnant to the his name had not expired. State v. Connecticut constitution (art. 1, § 21), Salge, i Nev, 4.55; State v. Waterman, declaring that the right of trial by jury i Nev. 543. shall remain inviolate. Colt v. Coes, A person who has taken no sten
toward naturalization is prohibited bu 2. Hart v. State, 14 Neb. 572; State the Floridu constitution from being a
12 Conn. 243.
But no length of citizenship is required as a qualification of juror.)
Alienage is generally a ground for excluding a juror (whatever the citizenship of the parties). But where an elector may be a foreigner not yet naturalized but intending to be, the simple fact of alienage does not disqualify a juror.
Property.-Freehoid still exists as a requirement in some States, as in Virginia 3 and North Carolina.4 In Alabamas and Mississippi, 6 a juror must be either a freeholder or a householder. On the other hand, in Indiana, a freeholder merely is not competent to sit upon a petit. jury; he must be a householder.?
In New Mexico the law requires a juror to be the owner of real estate.8 In other States he must be the owner of taxable property.
juror. And if after the jury is sworn, and the qualifications of jurors. Aaron z before any testimony is taken, such an State, 37 Ala. 106; Ala. Sel. Cases 12. one is discovered to be on the jury, the See Brown v. Witt, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) court should discharge him, supply 475. his place with a competent person and 6. Byrd v. State, 2 Miss. (1 How.) have the entire jury sworn anew. Keech 163. v. State, 15 Fla. 591. See also Judson In Texas, a juror is disqualified who v. Eslava, Manor (Ala.) 2.
is not a freeholder in the State or a 1. Byrd v. State, 2 Miss. (1 How. householder in the county. Thompson 163.)
on Trials, $ 532. See supra, this title, JURY DE ME- 7. Bradford v. State, 15 Ind. 347; DIETATE LINGUÆ. In Kentucky, such Carpenter v. Dame, 10 Ind. 125. See a jury (composed one half of foreigners) Kerwin v. The People, 96 III. 206. may still be directed to be returned by In Tennessee, a citizen of one county the court. G. L. Kentucky, 1879, p. who owns freehold lands in another,
or who is the owner of an occupant 3. Under the act of February 14th, right to lands situated in another 1846, a juror in a criminal case must be a county, is a good and lawful juror of freeholder in the county. Day's Case, 3 the county in which he resides. State Gratt. (Va.) 629; Dowdy v. Com., 9 v. Bryant, 10 Yerg (Tenn.) 527. Gratt. (Va.) 727.
8. As an "owner," a juror is qualified 4. Tales jurors must own real estate if he is in possession of, or has a qualiof freehold situate in the county. State fied interest in, real estate. Territory v. v. Cooper, 83 N. C. 671. A mortgagor Young, 2 New Mex. 93. in possession is within the act requir- 9. While the California Civil Code, ing tales jurors to be freeholders. His 198, requires that a juror be “astitle is an equitable freehold; and the sessed" on the last roll etc., the federal act does not require a juror to have a courts in California will accept a juror legal freehold. State v. Ragland, 75 N. who pays the taxes, though on the roll C. 12 (1876).
the assessment is in the name of another. A tenant by the courtesy initiate is a U. S. v. Hackett, 29 Fed. Rep 848. freeholder in the sense of that term In South Carolina, it is sufficient if a as applicable to the qualification of tax of three shillings has been paid in jurors. State v. Mills, 91 N. C. 581. the preceding year. State v. Marvey, 2
A statutory requirement of freehold Hill (S. Car.) 379; State v. Williams, 2 qualification for talesmen will not by. Hill (S. Car.) 381. But a poll tax is implication be extended to members of not sufficient. State v. Jennings, 15 the regular panel. Thompson on Trials, Rich. (S. Car.) 42; State v. Pratt, 15 § 53; State v. Wincroft, 76 N. C. 35. Rich. (S. Car.) 47. See U. S. v. Rey
5. The tenant and occupant, by yearly nolds, 1 Utah T. 226. letting, of a room used as a sleeping The provisions of the territorial statapartment, is not a freeholder or house- ute that a person shall not serve as a holder within the meaning of the Ala- petit juror unless he is the owner of bama Code, 3583, which prescribes taxable property, is express. The quali(Conn.) 451.
In New York, ownership of either real or personal property is a necessary qualification.1
In Texas and Mississippi a juror must be a householder,” a requirement which is not in conflict with the Mississippi constitution, art. 1, § 13, which directs that no property qualification shall ever be required of any person to become a juror.3
Education.-In Texas the ability to write is prescribed by the code of procedure as one of the qualifications of a juror.4 Elsewhere, ability to understand and speak the English language is sufficient.5
Previous Service as Furor.—The time within which such service renders one ineligible to serve again as a juror is regulated by statute. 6
Certain public officers are disqualified from serving on a jury.? fication must exist when he is offered. (Pa.) 395; Etheridge v. State, 8 Tex. Conway v. Clinton, 1 Utah T. 215 App. 133. (1875). See also State v. Doan, 2 Root But in Com, v. Hunnemore, 2 Brews.
(Pa.) 598 (1867), it was held that a 1. Act of 1847; Ladd v. Prentice, 14 juror is not disqualified by inability to
See Frisry v. People, 2 state his age; nor, in the absence of Abb. (N. Y.) App. Dec. 215 (1866). statute, by inability to read.
Vew York Rev. Stat. 411, § 13, 6. Brewer v. Tyringham, 14 Pick. Where, upon challenge of a juror, it (Mass.) 196; Purd. Dig. (Pa.), "juries," appeared that when placed on the jury pl. 62. list he was the owner of a farm, for The U. S. Rev. St., § 812, which which he was assessed, but was not as- provides that no person shall be sumsessed for personal property, and that moned as juror more than once in before the trial he sold his farm, taking two years, does not intend that twentyback a mortgage; it was held that he is four months must elapse between the not eligible. The ownership of person- close of the term at which a juror is alty must be evidenced by the assess- summoned and serves and the begin. ment roll. Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. ning of the next term at which he is 565 (1874).
competent to serve.
U. S. v. Reeves, 3 2. That a person has rented a store Woods C. Ct. 199. and slept in it does not make him a Texas jury law, 1876, p. 83, § 26. householder, so that he can serve on a Garcia v. State, 5 Tex. App. 337 (A2). jury. Brown v. State, 57 Miss. 424. 7. County commissioners
are disSee contra, Robles 'v. State, 5 Tex. qualified by Florida Laws, ch. 3010, $ 3. App. 346, where the term "household. This is not a privilege at the option of er"-as used in the law defining the the officer. But a judge of a qualifications of jurors—was held to court is not rendered incompetent to apply to one who "rents a room and serve as a juror in the supreme judicial boards." As to a citizen householder district. Page v. Lewis, 26 Me. 360. and voter of an unorganized county,
Officers of United States.-Nor are See Groom v. State, 23 Tex. App. 82. officers of the United States disqualified,
3. Miss. Code, 1871, 9724; Nelson v. though they have a right to be excused. State, 57 Miss. 286.
State v. Quimby, 51 Me. 395. 4. The ability “to write" is not satis- Councilmen.-In Pennsylvania, in fied by the proposed juror's ability to The City of Scranton v. Gore, 23 W. N. write his name and nothing more. The C. 419 (1889), it was held that under the statute contemplates that the juror shall act of April 16th, 1840 (P. L. 411), the be able to express his ideas in writing. fact that a person is a member of the Albert Johnson v. The State, 21 Tex. council of a town which is a party to App. 368. This is a qualification fur- the case does not disqualify him as a thest removed from the letter of the juror; and if he has been excluded on common law, though not perhaps from account of holding such office, the
judgment obtained after the trial must 6. Fisher v. Philadelphia, 4 Brews. be reversed, although his rejection does
Character.-Statutes generally provide that the jurors drawn shall be “sober, intelligent and judicious," or similar qualities.1
Age does not disqualify unless the person is under twenty-one or over seventy years of age.2
V. EXEMPTION FROM JURY DUTY.—Certain classes of persons are exempt by statute from service on juries. The classes exempt are substantially the same in all of the States. The privilege has reference either to occupation, public or private, 3 and to age.4
not appear to have prejudiced the of incorporated banks; railroad officers: plaintiff in error.
steamboat officers; members of fire Deputy Sheriff.--A deputy sheriff is companies; officers of the penitentiary; not disqualified. Burns v. State, 12 superintendent and physician of (inTex. App. 270.
sane) hospital and his assistants; all Coroner.-Nor a coroner. Jackson v. mail contractors, mail agents and pubState, 74 Ala. 26.
lic stage drivers; telegraph operators; Grand Jurors.—A grand juror of the members of the militia. Ala. Rev. panel who found a bill, is not compe- Code (1867), 94064; New York Code tent to try the case. Greenwood v. of Remedial Justice, 9 1030; Rev. Stat. State, 34 Tex. 334. See infra, this Mass., ch. 218, § 8; Bragg v. People, 78 title,Challenges for Cause; Implied Bias. Ill. 328 (1875); Bloom v. State, 20 Ga.
Most of the States have statutes ex- 443 (acts of 1854 and 1856, in regard pressly or impliedly enacting that ex- to fire companies); Stat. 1836 (Mo.) emptions by them created shall not be M'Gunnegle 7. State, 6 Mo. 367. considered grounds of challenge. See Exemption from serving on juries as Thompson on Trials, $ 10.
a member of a fire company is an ex1. Bright Pur. Dig. (Pa.), tit. “Juries,” emption from a special venire. State v. pl. 2. Except in prosecutions for big. Whitford, 12 Ired. (N. Car.) L. 99. amy or polygamy, under some statutes Members of fire companies in cities of the United States, a person is not dis- of Georgia are not now exempt. Ex qualified as a juror under 5 of the act parte Rust, 43 Ga. 209. of congress of March 22nd, 1882, by 2 N. Y. Rev. Stat. 415, Ø 33, exreason of his being a bigamist or polyg- empting persons in the actual employamist; neither is such a person disquali. ment of any "iron manufacturing comfied under 58 of that act, as the position pany" does not apply to companies enof a juryman is not such an "office or gaged in making articles from iron place of public trust, honor or emolu- manufactured. 1871, People v. Holdment as is contemplated by said sec- ridge, 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 511. tion. People v. State, 3 Utah 396. 4. The exemption is usually to those
This qualification will be treated at over sixty years of age. Such exemplength under Challenge for Cause, tion is a privilege which he may waive infra.
of seventy years. Belief.-A nonbeliever cannot serve Williams v. State, 67 Ala. 183; Mur. as a juror in Maryland. Shane v. phy v. People, 37 Ill. 447; State v. Clarke, 3 Har. & M. (Md.) 101. Miller, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 35; (Stat. Ind.
2. Williams v. State, 67 Ala. 183; 1824). Murphy v. People, 37 III. 447.
Honorary member of the Columbus 3. The classes generally exempt are: guard not exempt. Act 1845 (Ga.); Professors and students in colleges; Stewart v. State, 23 Ga. 181. teachers and pupils in schools; clergy- Nor the president of a company of men in charge of churches; judges of lessees of a penitentiary convicts, the several courts; attorneys at law within meaning of Georgia code, while practicing their profession; prac- 4805; Lockett v. State, 61 Ga. 44. ticing physicians; county commission- Nor a commissioner of navigation as a ers; officers of the State government; tales juror. State v. Hogg, 2 Murph. sheriff's and their deputies; clerks of (N. Car.) 319; Ex parte Hogg, 2 Tagl. courts and coroners; justices of the (N. Car.) 254. peace and constables during their term Nor a commissioned officer in the of office; keepers of mills, ferries and U. S.
State V. Ingraham, tolls; presidents, directors and officers 1 Cheves (s. Car.) 78.