Parker v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia
Indictment for Simple. Larceny. Tried before Judge Warner. In DeKalb Superior Court. April Term, 1866. The answer of one of tbe jurors to the question, whether his mind was perfectly impartial, was, “ that he was not satisfied that he was perfectly impartial — that he had partiality in his mind.”
Read the full summary
Indictment for Simple. Larceny. Tried before Judge Warner. In DeKalb Superior Court. April Term, 1866. The answer of one of tbe jurors to the question, whether his mind was perfectly impartial, was, “ that he was not satisfied that he was perfectly impartial — that he had partiality in his mind.” In reply to interregatories put by the court, he stated, “ that he did not personally know the prisoner, or the facts of the case, and had no prejudice against him as an individual; but in all such cases, because of the offence, he was prejudiced.” The court decided him to bo competent, and he was…
1Opinion of the CourtLupmpkih, C. J.
The defendant was convicted of simple larceny, for stealing *266a mule in the county of DeKalb, from a man by the name of Bailey. He took the mule to Atlanta, the day after he was stolen, and there had him sold at auction.
On the trial, when empanneling the j ury, the statutory question was propounded to one James O. Thurman, — that is, whether his mind was perfectly impartial between the State and the prisoner ? He answered that he was not satisfied that he was, — adding, that he had partiality in his mind. In reply to questions put by the Court, he stated that he did not personally know the…
2Cited by16 opinions
- United States v. John A. Tegzes, Susan LangstonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- Cuthbert v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Griffin v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
- Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1879
- Sligh v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.