The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1845-11-22
From the Philadelphia Ledger.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUST


In all great crimes. the administration of JUS
ice has become, in our great cities. a contempti-
BILE farce, or contrivance fo- the IMMUNITY of a
criminal. IL is difficult to convict man of rape
and almost impossible to convict man or woman
OF murder, In New York. Philade phia or Balti-
more. The late trial in Baltimore for an outrage
upon German girl, was a disgrace to the jurs-
prudence OF a civilized country. Equally so have
been many trials for treason, murder, riot and ar
son in our city. Equally so have been the two
trials of Polly Bodine in New York, and equally
so will be the third trial. if ever the court can
empanel jury. The jury will disagree. 'of
course; then her " long confinement and suffer
ing will be brought before the public for sympa-
thy, and she will he acquitted. Or if the Gov
ernor VIII promise to pardon her. she may be con-
victed under that promise, and turned loose TO
commit murders
One difficulty in collecting jury is produced
by the absurd question authorized by the law.
" have you formed an opinion in the case?" An
affirmative answer excludes the juror. We pro-
nounce this question absurd. and fitted to defeat
justice. In every case of discovered crime. some
account of it is circulated, in print or converse
ton; and upon such an account every of
common sense must &C form an opinion" Upon
the account before him, he must say to himself,
" 1t this account he true, the accused is, is not,
guilty" He cannot escape conclusion, though
he may add, So but will suspend my Judgment
till hear more" And is man who is thus ne
cessarily. by law of mind, driven to concln.
sion upon an account stated. incompetent to any
new opinion ct the case upon additional evidence
In other words. because he has reached conclu-
sion upon verbal or printed account without au-
thorliy, is he incompetent to another and more
correct opinion upon judicial evidenced Because
he mas founded an opinion upon a part of the
case, is he unable to found an enlightened and
honest opinion upon the whole? The doctrine
contrad!cts all human experience, and all sound
mental philosophy.
The proper question is, Sc are you open to con-
viction upon the evidence that shall be laid before
you, Notwithstanding any opinion which you NAV
have founded upon what you may have already
read or heard of the case ? IF he answer this
question aflirmativey. he is a competent juror &C
cordIDg To common sense, if not according to pre-
sent legal echnlcalities for he says, substantial
ly, "my opinions founded upon erpGrte state
ments will not prevent me from attentively hear
ing and imPartaIly hearing and mpa rtially weigh
lug the evidence to be presented judically. and to
hear and Judge which attentively and honestly.
shall be under oath and affirmation" The ex-
listing rule of evidence is founded on the hypothe-
sis. that the human mind, having reached one
opinion npon case, cannot, upon any new evil
dence reach another; hypothesis involving an
a0snrdlty And this rule is the very thing most
desirable to criminals, as it increases the difficult
ties in finding honest and intelligent jurors.
man who has not formed some opinion upon re-
port OF crime in his own vicinage, his own coun-
try. must be too stupid TO form an intelligent opin-
ion In the jury box, too much out of The world
TO be trusted with the Judgment of things trans
pring within it. Men fit for Juries are those
who have some business to mind, and none will
Ilngly leave their business for the jury box But
this stupid question opens wide door for their
escape from the duty; for any man Of common
sense will form an opinion upon what he has
heard. if it will discharge him from the duty of
forming an opinion upon what he has yet to hear