Wilson v. People
Citations
- 94 Ill. 299
Syllabus
<p>1. Juror—competency, in what manner to be questioned. This court can not inquire into the competency of a juror, where the record fails to show that the question of his competency was presented to the court below by challenge for cause or otherwise, the bill of exceptions simply showing that after the juror was examined touching his competency, he was challenged peremptorily.</p> <p>2. Same—competency of a juror as having formed an opinion. A person called as a juror in a criminal case where the defendant was indicted for murder, stated, in response to questions touching his qualifications as a juror: “I have read newspaper accounts of the commission of the crime with which the defendant is charged, and have also conversed with several persons in regard to it since coming here, and during my attendance upon this term of court,—do not know whether they are witnesses in the case or not—do not know who the witnesses in the case are. From accounts I have read and from conversations I have had, I have formed an' opinion in the case, and would have an opinion in the case now if the facts should turn out as I heard them, and I think it would take some evidence to remove that opinion. Would be governed by the evidence in the case, and can give the defendant a fair and impartial trial according to the law and the evidence.” A challenge for cause in behalf of the defendant having been denied, the juror was challenged peremptorily. It was held, the juror was competent. The opinion formed seems not to have been decided, but one of a light and transient character, which, at no time, would have disqualified the juror from serving. But aside from this, all objection as to his competency in respect to any opinion he seems to have formed was removed by the statute. Rev. Stat. 1874, 633, g 14.</p> <p>3. Same—effect of peremptory challenge where challenges not exhausted. In this case the defendant, in the selection of the jury by whom he was tried, exhausted only two of his perempt
Judges: Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- The People v. FordIllinois Supreme Court· 1960-06-14· cited 67×
- Moore v. ShieldsIndiana Supreme Court· 1889-12-13· cited 44×
- State v. ReddingtonSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1895-08-24· cited 41×
- Ford v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1887-11-29· cited 35×
- Cooke v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1907-10-23· cited 34×
- Andrews v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1885-06-15· cited 31×
- People v. HarrisMichigan Supreme Court· 1893-03-10· cited 31×
- State v. WaltonSupreme Court of Missouri· 1881-10-15· cited 27×
- The PEOPLE v. KellyIllinois Supreme Court· 1956-05-23· cited 21×
- State v. BryantSupreme Court of Missouri· 1887-10-15· cited 20×
- State v. CullerSupreme Court of Missouri· 1884-10-15· cited 19×
- State v. PhelpsSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1894-06-13· cited 18×
- The People v. FedoraIllinois Supreme Court· 1946-01-23· cited 15×
- People v. AdamsIllinois Supreme Court· 1954-12-20· cited 9×
- People v. MichaelIllinois Supreme Court· 1917-06-21· cited 9×
- People v. KerneyIllinois Supreme Court· 1952-11-20· cited 6×
- St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. ReaganAppellate Court of Illinois· 1894-03-23· cited 6×
- United States v. GrodsonN.D. Illinois· 1908-09-28· cited 3×
- Chicago Union Traction Co. v. LowenrosenAppellate Court of Illinois· 1905-12-04· cited 2×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.