Williamson v. State

1. Where one ground of a motion for a new trial was that certain named jurors trying the case were not impartial and qualified, for the reason that they were; biased and prejudiced, and had expressed opinions before the trial to the effect that “they were going to try the defendant and they ought to hang him,” and that hanging was too good, for him, and if on the jury they would so find, the judge on the hearing of such motion is the trior of the competency of the jurors; and where the jurors attacked deny making the statements attributed to them on oath, and under the conflicting evidence…