Grady v. State
Supreme Court of Iowa
Error to the Davis District Court. The plaintiff in error was convicted of a misdemeanor, and filed a motion for a new trial upon the following three grounds: 1. That the verdict was not warranted by the facts shown by evidence. 2. That the verdict was contrary to law. 3. That the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
Read the full summary
Error to the Davis District Court. The plaintiff in error was convicted of a misdemeanor, and filed a motion for a new trial upon the following three grounds: 1. That the verdict was not warranted by the facts shown by evidence. 2. That the verdict was contrary to law. 3. That the verdict was contrary to the evidence. To support this motion, the defendant offered the affidavit of his attorney, to the effect that Joseph Hopkins, one of the jurors, stated after the trial, that the jury, in finding the verdict of guilty, disregarded and did not take into consideration, the instructions of the…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodward, J.
It is the opinion of this court, that the court below did not err in refusing to listen to the affidavit offered. If the juror would not make affidavit to this matter, it could not be shown by proving his declarations. We do hot say that a juror’s declarations cannot be received in any case, but think they cannot be to prove the matter in the present instance. By section 1810 of the Code, the affidavits of jurors may be received on applications for new trials. But they cannot be compelled to make them, (Foshee v. Abrams, 2 Iowa, 571,) and it is not clear that they could be received to impeach…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Forshee v. AbramsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wright v. Illinois & Mississippi Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Waltham Piano Co. v. FreemanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Goodwin v. BlanchardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1906
- Crumley v. AdkinsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1861