Of course, the separation should only be allowed when attended with those precautions and safeguards necessary to secure entire freedom from approach or external influence of any kind.

"We do not see what good the presence of the prisoner would do, as he could neither ask nor answer questions, nor in any way interfere with the acts, observations or conclusions of the jury."

No presumptions can be entertained against the jurors until it is affirmatively shown that there was such a separation as would constitute a violation of the directions of the court and of the rights of the defendant, and the facts do not show such separation in this case

—view of premises is neither in contemplation of act nor otherwise any part of trial, and that, rather, it is suspension of trial, to enable jury to view ground, etc., that they may better understand testimony.

Thus, when the verdict is guilty as charged, where the indictment is for murder, and the statute requires the degree of the offense to be ascertained in the finding of the jury, the court may tell the jury that their verdict is not in proper form, and that they must retire, and designate in which degree they find the prisoner guilty.

It is not a valid objection to the examination of a witness that his name is not indorsed on the indictment.

Some provide for an officer and some other person, familiar with the localities, to simply point out to the jury the places about which testimony has been taken.

But in this case, the Court at the outset informed defendant of the order and manner in which to make his challenges, and the Court must of necessity be vested with a reasonable discretion in determining the preliminaries of a criminal trial, even if not strictly in accordance with statutory provisions, or to make rules and orders in its discretion, to expedite trials, and if there …

Separation, after retirement for deliberation, even without leave of court, is not of itself ground for reversal

[BOOK] A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States: Vol. II