In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3. the first round of the trial Jury selection went faster than expected, taking only two hours. A jury pool, called a venire, of thirty-six men had been summoned. These names were written on individual pieces of paper placed in a broad-brimmed hat owned by Sheriff Thomas Caughman. A cloth covered the hat. The custom was to have a small boy who could neither read nor write draw the names. In this odd manner , a child was allowed to participate in the justice system and impartiality was supposedly insured.1 Jurors whose names were called were questioned by Judge Gary under a process called, voir dire, a term from law French, meaning “to speak the truth.”2 The judge sought to eliminate biased jurors by inquiring of each candidate whether he was “related by blood or marriage to either the deceased or the prisoner at the bar,” whether he had “formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused,” whether he had “any bias or prejudice for or against the prisoner,” and finally whether there was “any reason why” he could not “make an impartial juror in this case.”3 If the answers to these questions revealed bias, the juror was eliminated. Four members of the panel were eliminated in this manner.4 In addition the defense was given ten and the prosecution five peremptory challenges, opportunities to eliminate a potential juror without giving a reason. The defense used nine of its ten peremptory challenges, and the prosecution used all five of those allotted to it.5 The only dispute was over Murray Parnell. The prosecution sought to have him 68 deadly censorship dismissed because he was not listed in the voter-registration book and thus did not meet the requirement that jurors be qualified electors. The defense wanted him to serve. Even though Parnell did not have a registration card with him, he convinced the judge that he had been issued one, and Judge Gary ruled that Parnell was qualified because the original registration books had been lost and the replacement was incomplete.6 Since he could not prove a cause for Parnell’s automatic exclusion, Solicitor Thurmond was forced to use one of the prosecution ’s meager hoard of five peremptory challenges to be rid of him.7 The battle over whether Parnell would be a juror was vigorously fought. Thurmond apparently thought Parnell was dangerously biased for the defense, although his reasons for thinking so do not appear on the record. The fight over Parnell was so intense that one might speculate that the prosecution feared he would not only cast a defense vote but would lead other jurors to do so as well. The skillful and energetic way in which Thurmond conducted his side of the debate indicates that, despite his political alliance with Ben Tillman, the solicitor was not pulling any punches in prosecuting his ally’s nephew. The Jury The jury as finally selected was made up of these men: George H. Koon, former county supervisor and farmer (elected foreman by his fellow jurors)8 Jacob E. Saylor, merchant and farmer George F. Leitsey ( or Leitzsey), farmer Irvin Risinger, farmer Martin L. Lybrand, cotton-mill operative at Lexington Mills Milton Sharpe, farmer Jonas Corley, cotton-mill operative at Dutch Mill Marshall Shealey, farmer J. B. Jumper, farmer Willie L. Hicks, cotton-mill operative and police officer James E. Price, farmer Homer Woods, operative and weaving-room foreman at Red Bank Cotton Mills9 14.70.203] Project MUSE (2024-04-20 00:14 GMT) the first round of the trial 69 The political nature of the trial was underscored by the selection of George Hilliard Koon as foreman. As county supervisor, an elective office, he had played a key role in the construction and repair of public works, such as roads and bridges. Koon was later elected supervisor again, but he became entangled in a dispute over whether a bridge-building contract he had awarded in 1908 involved an excessive price and kickbacks. Though he was then defeated for reelection, he held public office again as a member of the county dispensary board, which controlled liquor sales.10 This jury of farmers and mill workers must have warmed the hearts of Jim Tillman and his defense counsel. It was among people with such backgrounds that the defendant’s Uncle Ben Tillman had found support for his reform movement , which shifted power from the more aristocratic and conservative Bourbon...

Share