Part 4d: JFR Trial – The Surprise
Trial Transcript, pages 138 – 140, Sect. 414 – 419
Excusing: After lengthy questioning of the prospective jurors, the Prosecution excuses Juror No. 6 and 11 and the Defense excuses Juror No. 1 and 11. So, contrary to the “Railroad Job” that the Watchtower Society claims, their Defense Attorneys were allowed to take far more than the customary time to challenge jurors, and excuse those they do not want.
The Surprise: Four new prospective jurors are called to replace the excused jurors. The Judge asks these jurors much the same types of questions about being fair, impartial, following the law, and base their decision on the evidence. After this the Judge asks a rather unique question:
COURT to new jurors: Are any of you four gentlemen acquainted with any of the defendants?
(No Answer)
COURT: Have any of you read any literature they published?
(No Answer)
COURT: Are any of you acquainted with Counsel for the defense?
Talesman (juror) Sauze: I know Mr. Fuller. I also know Mr. France.
[Note: Mr. Fuller is the second Defense attorney working with Mr. Sparks, and Mr. France is the US Attorney who signed the actual Indictment.]
COURT: Is that acquaintance a chance one?
Talesman Sauze: No, Sir.
COURT: Long standing?
Talesman Sauze: I have known them several years, since I was a boy.
COURT: Any business relation?
Talesman Sauze: No, sir.
COURT: How about the other jurymen just called?
Juror No. 10: I know Mr. France. That question was not asked before.
COURT: You were asked that before?
Juror No. 10: No; wasn’t asked.
COURT: Would this have any influence on your emotions, consciously or unconsciously – you want to try this case on the evidence given in Court, not because you know the parties.
Talesman Sauze: I have been a resident of this town fifty years. How could it be possible not to know these men?
COURT: Any questions the defendants desire to ask? I am not going to allow the Government to ask any questions without having some special question that has some special significance.
[Note: Basically, what the Judge is doing here is cutting the Government off, but allowing the Defense to have more leeway as to what they want to do with these new jurors. How anyone could charge the Court with a railroad job is beyond me.]
Sparks to juror Stewart: Mr. Stewart, have you any sons?
Stweart: Yes, twenty-three years old.
COURT: Have you other three gentlemen any sons of draft age?
(All answer in the negative)
[Note: The questioning continued on with several more jurors, with the Defense excusing several more and the Government excusing two more. BUT, the Surprise: Juror No. 1, Mr. Sauze, who is a lifelong friend of the Defense attorney, Mr. Fuller, was never excused, and remained on the jury. Another juror, No. 5, Mr. Stewart, who knew a couple of Government attorneys, was also never excused ... the Defense let him stay.
The issue here is that the Defendants, Rutherford and Company were NOT railroaded by the Government. Rather, they were even allowed to keep a close friend of Defense Attorney on the jury. Also, as you follow the next phase, the Cross Examination, you will see that Mr. Fuller is very sympathetic of the Bible Students beliefs, suggesting to me that he may have also been a Bible Student.
In Criminal Trials: It only takes “one” juror to deadlock a jury, and given Mr. Sauze’s presence on the Jury, he would of anyone have cause to be more sympathetic to his friend, Defense Attorney, Mr. Fuller. It would be very hard to set that sympathy aside.
Next: Part 5: Cross Examination ... this will be many sub-parts, but there is too much really good material to leave it out. ... to be continued ...