Cooley v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Wise. Tried below before the Hon. C. C. Binkley. This was a felony, and the opinion is confined to a discussion of the practice that should obtain in impanneling jurors, and especially in making challenges. The facts, so far as necessary, appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
This is a case in which arises on the bill of exceptions a question of great importance to the practice in the District Courts.
Different judges appear to have adopted different practices in their districts touching the mode of impanneling juries, and we feel called on to state the rule which should be uniformly adopted.
A party is not limited in the number of challenges he may make for cause. The challenge may be made to the array propter defectum; from personal objections, such as alienage, infancy, or lack of statutory requirements; propter affectum, on account of bias or partiality; propter…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
- Vanhook v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1854
- Lewis v. DetrichSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mahon v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1912
- People v. CurranIllinois Supreme Court · 1918
- State v. WrightSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- Baker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1878
- Greenfield v. PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1878