State v. Doolittle

58 N.H. 92
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided March 5, 1877·Published

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Doolittle, 58 N.H. 92 (N.H. 1877).

58 N.H. 92 (State v. Doolittle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Marchant
25 U.S. 480 (Supreme Court, 1827)
State v. Soper
16 Me. 293 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1839)
People v. Vermilyea
7 Cow. 369 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)
People v. Howell
4 Johns. 296 (New York Supreme Court, 1809)
Hawkins v. State
9 Ala. 137 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1846)