People v. Sullivan

CRAIG, J.

The defendant was convicted of criminal syndicalism. He appeals from the judgment pronounced thereon, and from the order denying’ his motion for a new

[634]

trial.- The information is substantially in the language of the statute. It charges the defendant with a violation of several inhibitions of the law known as the Criminal Syndicalism Act. The information contains but one count.

[1]

Complaint is made that the court committed prejudicial error in disallowing challenges to the jurors Eankin and Morstad. Eankin testified that he had formed an opinion as to whether the Industrial Workers of the World is a lawful and peaceable organization. That he based his opinion upon newspaper statements, some literature purporting to be of the I. W. W., which a hired man had shown him, and also statements made by this man about the organization to him and to other men. Morstad stated that he had an opinion on the question as to whether the Industrial Workers of the World advocate and teach violence and terrorism, based on information he had seen in the public press and pamphlets which he understood were issued by the I. W. W., and also upon statements of persons claiming to tell the facts from their own knowledge concerning the organization, and which statements he believed to be true.

The prosecuting attorney, against the objection of defendant’s counsel, was permitted to draw from each of these prospective jurors a statement that, notwithstanding his opinion upon the matters in question, he could and would give the defendant a fair and impartial trial. These jurors were challenged for actual bias, under subdivision 2 of section 1073, Penal Code.

The jurors had formed and still possessed opinions as to the illegal character of the I. W. W. These opinions were not based solely upon public rumor, common notoriety or statements in journals, and hence section 1076 of the Penal Code is inapplicable. They were founded in part upon what persons had said. Morstad’s opinion was in part the result of what men had told him of things which they claimed to know of their own knowledge, and which he asserted were believed by him to be true. Therefore, no further inquiry was permissible. The disqualification of the jurors could not be removed by their statement that they •could and would give defendant a fair and impartial trial, and set aside the opinions which they had formed.