If a juror on his examination says that he has expressed an opinion on the guilt of the accused, he is absolutely disqualified, and a challenge for cause should be allowed.28 But if the opinion the juror has formed and expressed is based on rumors - if they were true - without expressing belief in their truth, he is not disqualified.29

25 Spies vs. People, 122 Ill., 257; Gott vs. People, 187 Ill., 249; People vs. Durrant, 116 Cal., 179; People vs. Decker, 157 N. Y., 186; People vs. Alpin, 86 Mich., 393; Williams vs. State, 30 Tex. App., 354.

46 Ochs vs. People, 124 Ill., 410;

State vs. Yetzer, 97 Iowa, 423; Ward vs. State, 102 Tenn., 724; State vs. Weaver, 58 S. C, 106; Erwin vs. State, 29 Ohio St., 186. 27 Hughes' Cr. Law, Sec. 2927; Coughlin vs. People, 144 Ill., 164;; 3 Blackstone Com., 363.

If a juror, on his examination, clearly shows himself disqualified, such disqualification cannot be removed by the juror swearing that notwithstanding his opinion he can and will try the case fairly and render an impartial verdict. His disqualification is a legal conclusion incapable of rebuttal.30 Therefore, persuasive, coaxing, lecturing questions put to a juror by the court in such a way as to induce him to say that he can and will try the case fairly and impartially, when it is apparent from his answers that he has a fixed opinion as to the guilt of the accused and that he is prejudiced, will not render him a competent juror.31

The forming of an opinion, though not expressed, has been held to be a disqualification, especially if the juror says that he would require evidence to remove his opinion.32 But the contrary doctrine seems to be held by the courts in other states.33 So, if a juror has a decided opinion respecting the merits of the controversy, from a personal knowledge of the facts, or from statements of the witnesses, or from the relation of the parties, or from rumor, he is disqualified, and a challenge for cause should be sustained.34

28 Coughlin vs. People, 144 Ill., 166; Greenfield vs. People, 74 N. Y., 277.

29 Hughes' Cr. Law, Sec. 2944; Travis vs. Com., 106 Pa. St., 597

30 Coughlin vs. People, 144 Ill., 176; Dugle vs. State, 100 Ind., 259; Sellers vs. People, 3 Scam. (Ill.), 412. (Juror held disqualified.) Frazier vs. State, 23 Ohio St., 551; State vs.

Rutten, 13 Wash., 203. Contra: Com. vs. Eagan, 190 Pa. St., 10; Hardin vs. State, 66 Ark., 53; State vs. Willis, 71 Conn., 293.

31 Coughlin vs. People, 144 Ill., 184.

32 Coughlin vs. People; 144 Ill., 166; Dugle vs. State, 100 Ind., 259.

83 Hughes' Cr. Law, Sec. 2946;

State vs. Morse, 35 Or., 462.

84 Collins vs. People, 48 Ill., 147;

McGuire vs. State, 76 Miss.,

Section 89. Prejudice Disqualifies A Juror

When it appears from the examination of a juror that he is prejudiced against the accused, or the kind of business he is engaged in, he is disqualified.35