The Western Democrat

Can a Juror be a Witness?

A curious law point came up in Philadelphia and excited considerable comment among the lawyers. One Donnelly was on trial in Court of Quarter Sessions, for larceny, and the case was a very protracted one.

In the course of the process, it appeared that one of the jurors had made a statement, not under oath, pertinent to the issue, and disadvantageous to the prisoner. Upon this the point was raised that the jury should be dismissed and a new trial ordered.

Judge Allison, in delivering his opinion, said he had reviewed the whole matter thoroughly, and had endeavored to discover any authorities by which he could be governed in deciding the question as then present. but he had been unable to find any case precisely like the present one. The principle was well established that a juror could be a witness to any fact which in the course of the trial he discovered he was possessed of, but the present case was not governed by that plain principle to which he had referred, as the juror had made his communication to the District Attorney during the recess of the court, and when the defendant and his counsel were not present.

And there was the further fact, that the juror had stated his knowledge to at least one or two of his fellow-jurymen some hours before it was given to the District Attorney or the court.

Judge Allison could see nothing in the conduct of the juror, or the District Attorney which was not correct, and refused to discharge the jury.

The prisoner protested against the decision; and his counsels F. C. Brewster and David Paul Brown threw up the defence. The jury convicted the prisoner and a motion for a new trial was immediately made.