LANG v. NEW JERSEY. Argmnent for Plaintiff in Error. Oklahoma, 40. Neither argument nor citation of authorities is necessary to establish the correctness of the decree below, and it is IM?G v. NEW JERSEY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF FaRoRs AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. No. 649. Argu?i Al?! ?, 1908.--]?eid?l April 27, It is within the power of the State to divide accnsed persons into two cla?e?, those who are, and those who may be, accused, and, if there is no dis- crimination within the clacsez,.a person in one of the clnsses is not denied the equal protection of the laws because he does not have the same right of challenge of a grand juror as persons in the other class. As construed by the highest court of that State, the statute of New Jersey providing that chollenges to grand jurors cannot he made after the juror lm? been sworn doe? not deprive a person accused after the grand jury has been impanelled and sworn of the equal pretection of the law because one accused prior thereto would have the right of challenge. 68 Atl. Rep. 210, affirmed. THr. facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Alan H. $trom? for plaintiff in error: To challenge a grand juror for any ground of disqualifica- tion ?s the right at common law of any one who is under prosecu- tion for any crime whatever. 2 Hawkln? P. C., c. 25, �; 1 Bishop Crim. Pro. (3d ed.), �6; 4 Crim. Law Magazine (March, 1883), 171 &c. If any one of the jurors of the grand jury which finds an indictment is disqualified, he vitiates the whole, though all the other jurors should be unexceptionable. 2 Hawkins, P. C., Chitty Crim. Law, 307; State v. Rocka]e//o?, 1 H?l?tead, 332;
�
