Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

STATE V. DOOLITTLE.

Two or more, jointly indicted for murder are not, as matter of right, entitled to separate trials.

The challenge, by one of the defendants, of a juror whom the other has accepted, is no ground of exception for the latter.

STANLEY, J.

The respondents were not, as matter of right, entitled to separate trials. Am. Cr. Law, ss. 433, 3195; Hawkins v. State, 9 Ala. 137; State v. Soper, 16 Me. 293; 9 Cow. 108, 138, 383; .6 Ham. 86; 2 Ashm. 32; 1 Baldw. 78; 2 Sumn. 20; 4 Johns. 296.

The right to challenge a juror is not a right to elect; it is a right to reject. Where two or more are jointly indicted for a capital offence, each one is entitled to the full number of challenges allowed by law. Am. Cr. Law, s. 3195; U.S. v. Marchant, 12 Wheat. 481; People v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow. 383.

Exceptions overruled.

FOSTER and ALLEN, JJ., did not sit.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. DOOLITTLE
(Mar 1, 1877)