New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-10-21
sEPARATION OF JURORS.

experiment which succeeded go Well IN tnc AL
cem csse After having agreed to, they
did not actually suggest, the separation of
the jury upon the daily sdjournments Of the Court
during the progress Of the trial, finding the YER
dict ,gsinst them, they turned round and alleged
that this separation was Illegal, the law requir.
ing that in capital cases at least if no other, the
jury, from the beginning to the end of the trial
should be kept separate from all exterior inter-
course.
Such, no doubt, originally was the rule
applicable t. the trial of aH felones; and
in the times when trials seldom, or
peyer, exceeded single day in length, there
was little inconvenience in its application The
elaborate style in which cases Of interest are now
tired, and the extreme length, extending not only
to days but TO weeks, to which trials frequently run
Cd, are Of very modern origin. The first English
case on record in which occurred an adjournment
of capital trial from one day to another vas that
of the Kpg VS. Stone, for high treason, tried before
Lord Kenyon, go lately as l796. Lord Kenyon, it
may be obser7ed was great stickler for old forms
ard I'D doctrines, and be overruled quite number
of Innovations which Lord Mansfield had sane
toned But in this case he felt reason pressing
upon him stronger than antiquity and reverence for
the p,st He was compelled b. his own sensations
TO admit that circumstances alter cases, and be
justified the adjournment on the ground that no rule
could compel the Court to continue sitting longer
than was consistent with humsn endurance In
that case, however, though he adjourned the
Court, Lord Kenyon DID not allow the Jury TO
separate He placed them in charge of baillis,
who, as lie customary, when Juries are cent out
after the Judges charge, 10 deliberate on their
verdict we're sworn not to speak to them, nor
suffer any other person to speak to them, and
this was one Of the cases relied upon by the
plaintiff in error. 1t does not appear that 10
capital cases che English Courts have gone any
further than this, though in civil cases and IN
trials for misdemesnors, the usage is established
and has been formally justified BY the Court OF
Kings Bench, of allowing the Jurors to dis
perse AMI 90 to their homes when the Court
adiourus for the night during the progress of
the trsl. This separation, however, takes place
under directions from the Court to have no
communication with any body touching the INST
ter at issue. The separation in these cases has
been iustf on the ground that the allowing
the Jury TO separate or not is matter within
the discretion of the Court, a question of ex-
ptdiency not Of power. If so, 1t does not
appear Why a similar discretion should not eI'
tend TO capital cases.
Though there number of cssesin our Amer
ican Reports in which the separation Of the Jury
in capital casts before the rendition of their YER
Diet, has come under discussion they all seem to
be cases in which the separation took place With
cut the leave Of the Court, else comp Gated
with some other alleged misbehavlor. This
Stephens case seems to have been the first in
which the question of the power of the Court to
allow separation of the Jury, pending the trial
has been distinctly raised, though 10 practice such
discretion has been exercised for years past.
The Court of Appesl,, in stating the reasons
against allowing any separation confines itself TO
the danger the jurors would thereby be exposed to
Of attempts by unprincipled men 10 bride or to
nislead them. This does not appear to US quite
correct statement Of The case The law Is exceed
iDgy particular as to what sort of evidence It al
lows to go to Jury. Neither will it permit any
body to address 81 argument to the Jury on ths
force and bearing OF that evidence, except the
Judge and the counsel retained in the case. Nov,
it seems little ridiculous, after Court has spent
whole day, perhaps, in hearing arguments on the
proprieiy Of admitting or rejecting this or that
piece of evidence, to allow the jurors 10 separate,
aud go out into the streets, where they VIII De- ex-
posed to hear every rumor hOsting abOl. In
relation TO the case everybody knows that,
under our system Of trials, be it good or
be il bal, case as presented IN the court
room is very generally very different thing from
the same Gaze az it is Understood and talked OF out Of
doors. The main object Of the seclusOo OF the jury
where that seclusion is practced, is We aPprehend,
10 coufue them TO the view of the csse'
Ii is not alone 10 the Vaccinations Of unprincped
men who would seek to bribe or deceive, that the
Jurors are exposed by separation. They are ex-
po.ed TO hear out Of doors, and that from very Well
meaning ueu, who have no other object except u
e1lgbten them, statements and arguments which
the Court and counsel take Infinite pains 10 prevent
them from hearing indoors. There is an apparent
incon siitency between being exceedingly watch
ful over the Jury while they together, aud then
allowing them 10 separste, each Juror to hear what
he may. II is true that Tie Judge warns them 70
tax With nobody about the case; but, even
SLOWING more effect 10 this warning than II always
has Juror 81 be lisbe TO oTerbear con7er'asiOns
between Others quite IS likely to influence nm Is
spy Communication. m.1e directly TO h.nieh III
trials lasted only two or three days, the argument
in favor Of keeping the Jury together would seem
10 be very ,trong. BG! when they come 70 extend