People v. Reyes
Citations
- 5 Cal. 347
- 1855 Cal. LEXIS 139
Syllabus
<p>A jnrov being challenged for bias, was examined before triers, and asked the following questions 1st. Are you not a member of a secret and mysterious order known as, and called, Know Nothings, which has imposed on you an oath or obligation, beside which, an oath, administered to you in a court of justice, if in conflict with that oath or obligation, would be by you disregarded? 2d. Arc you a member of any secret association, political or otherwise, by your oaths or obligations to which, any prejudice exists in your mind against Catholic foreigners? 3d. Do you belong to any secret political society known as, and called by the people at large in the United States, Know Nothings ? And if so, are yon bound by an oath, or other obligation, not to give a prisoner of foreign birth, in a court of justice, a fair and impartial trial ? Held, That the Court erred in ruling out these questions.</p> <p>The juror was also asked the questions, Have you, at any time, taken an oath or other obligation of such a character, that it hascaused a prejudice in your mind against foreigners Are you under any obligation not to extend the same rights, privileges, protection, and support to men of foreign birth as to native ■ horn American citizens ? Have you any prejudice whatever against foreigners? Held,¡>er Bryan, J., That the Court erred in ruling out the questions.</p> <p>The law contemplates that every juror who sits in a cause, shall have a mind free from all bias or prejudice of any kind, and if a juror is prejudiced in any manner, he is not a proper person to sit in the jury box.</p> <p>Prejudice is a state of mind, which, in the eye of the law, has no degrees.</p> <p>Where a juror is challenged for actual bias, the triers are to determine the fact from the testimony, and any testimony which would lead to the conclusion that a bias existed in the juror’s mind, is competent testimony.</p> <p>To ascertain whether a bias exists in the mind of a juror, resort must be had to his declar
Judges: Bryan, Murray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Swain v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1965-03-08· cited 3,183×
- People v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1978-09-25· cited 1,612×
- Rosales-Lopez v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1981-04-21· cited 771×
- Aldridge v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1931-04-20· cited 452×
- Casey v. Roman Catholic ArchbishopCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1958-07-19· cited 104×
- Monaghan v. Agricultural Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court· 1884-04-09· cited 71×
- Joseph J. Tracey v. Joan PalmateerNinth Circuit· 2003-08-29· cited 52×
- State v. MannSupreme Court of Missouri· 1884-10-15· cited 36×
- People v. BuyleCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1937-07-22· cited 26×
- Lavin v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1873-09-15· cited 22×
- Brumfield v. Consolidated Coach CorporationCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1931-06-19· cited 17×
- State v. . BoyleSupreme Court of North Carolina· 1889-09-05· cited 14×
- Hill v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1916-10-15· cited 10×
- McFadden v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1979-07-09· cited 4×
- State v. MillerIdaho Supreme Court· 1939-03-10
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.