Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

THE STATE v. WEINBERG

May 2, 1956

THE STATE, RESPONDENT,
v.
JOE WEINBERG, APPELLANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Taylor, Justice.

May 2, 1956.

At the June Term of General Sessions Court for Darlington County, jurors George DuBose and Clarence Boseman, Jr., were examined in open Court as to appellant and others having approached and discussed with them prior to that term of Court facts relating to a then pending case, at the time having knowledge that they were to serve as jurors at the June Term of Court. As a result, the Honorable J. Woodrow Lewis, presiding Judge, issued a rule requiring the appellant and others whose returns were adjudged sufficient and exonerated to show cause on the first day of July, 1955, why they should not be adjudged in contempt of Court for attempting to influence the said jurors in regards to the then pending case of The State v. Cecil Weinberg and Allen Wright.

The juror George DuBose testified that he lived in Darlington County, was engaged in the upholstery and parts business, but that he had never had any business dealings with appellant; that on June 18, appellant came to his home early in the morning and that he and the appellant and another sat in appellant's car, as it was raining, and discussed the case of appellant's son which was then pending in the Court of General Sessions for Darlington County, appellant stating to him that he knew he, DuBose, had been drawn for jury service for the next week, pertinent portions of the testimony being:

"Q. All right. What else did he say in connection with it? A. I understood him to say that there was something about two bottles of bottled in bond and two bottles of stump-hole whiskey; they scratched out the stump-hole whiskey and had him charged on the bottled in bond.

Q. He discussed with you the indictment against somebody in a liquor case? Told you that something had been scratched out concerning stump-hole whiskey, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the trial would concern two bottles of bottled in bond whiskey, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did he say he wanted you to do in connection with it? A. If I could help him out any, to help him out.

Q. If you could help him out, he would like for you to do so? A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Now Mr. DuBose, had Mr. Weinberg ever come to your home to see you before? A. Well, two years ago.

Q. All right. Two years ago. Were you drawn as a juror two years ago when he came? A. In this court, yes, sir.

Q. Yes, in this court. And what did he come to you concerning that time?

Mr. Keels: If your Honor pleases, I believe we were ruled to show cause in this particular instance.

Mr. Kilgo: If your Honor pleases, this testimony is to show whether or not the defendant is a constant visitor at his home and whether he had reason to be there other than in connection with this case.

The Court: Mr. Keels, I think it would be relevant: I think it would have some bearing as to whether or not he went there this time and for what purpose. I overrule the objection.

Q. Now, Mr. DuBose on the other trip about two years ago, what did it concern? A. About a fight.

Q. A fight involving who? A. A policeman; I don't ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.