Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1859-11-10
Trial by Jury.

A1AuL Ny uuAy'
The Constitution of this State guarantees to all
parties the right of trial by jury on all issues
of fact proper for such cognzance. This right
was regarded by the trainers of the Constitution
as so sacred that it is twice mentioned in that
instrument. 1t is a right too important to the
safety and the liberty of the citizen, to be rifed
with, cvaded, or practically nullfed, as is often
the case at present in our Courts We say this
with all respect to the Judiciary. No man holds
them in higher estimation than we do. Yet we
do not think they claim to be free from some of
the infrmites of human nature And among
these infrmities we must reckon the desire fire.
quently,-a il at all, too often, manifested
by the presiding Judge, at Jury trial. to lead
the mind of the triers to see the facts as they
appear to the Court
In theory, this is in conformity with
the Constitution and the law,-the presiding
Judge on TRIALS of fact by panel of twelve
men, sits merely to decide questions of law, and
preserve the order of the trial In civil causes
his decisions within this limit are conclusive
upon the jury;-in criminal trials, the jury
have the legal right to disregard the directions
of the Court, and determine the law as well as
the facts of the case for themselves.
On points flaw the case may be heard again
in the Supreme Court, upon such exceptions as
counsel may be able to get from the Court, On
the facts the findings of the Jury, under the in
structions Of the Court, are final. And ac ord
ing to this theory, he is reckoned to be model
judge who gives the jury no hints in his charge
respecting the freight Of evidence, but leaves that
question wholly to the counsel and to the panel.
And we hold this to be as perfect theory of
the respective duties Of the Court and the Jury,
in the trial of causes, as can be devised q safe,
and the only safe rule to be followed by the
Court And in our free government no one has
been found rash enough to hold that the Court,
in jury trials, has any business to decide the
facts, or that the jury, except in criminal trials,
have anything to do with the law of the case.
But how is this theory carried out in prac-
tce? Every body at all conversant with pro-
ceedings in Court understands that the theory
is shorn of its fair proportions by many if not
oil of the judges on the bench and this comes
not from any improper motive on the part of
the Court, but generally from desire to help
what the Court regards rs the right side of the
case. Were judges perfect beings and not liable
to mistakes very much like other men, this
meddlng with that which is not within their
province, might work no injustice; though
every argument which would then justify it,
would strike at once and directly at the life of
the trial by jury. But in fact it turns out that
the judge when he gets into the domain of fact,
is just about as likely to make mistakes as other
men, and is about as much out of his "beat, -
MS the jury when they attempt to determine the
law. Each ought to take care of his part of
the case, and not trespass upon the domain of
the other.
There is nothing at which judge sooner takes
offence than at any attempt on the part of coun-
sci to discuss questions of law to juries. Judges
are, as a general thing quite sensitive, some
times even indignant, if lawyer in criminal
ELSEWHERE by solemn decision, of the Supreme
Court. as yet unreversed, the jury have right
to determine the law-presume to tell the jury
that they are under no obligation to take the
law of the Court, but may decide it for them.
selves lronical, sneering, or sarcastic remarks
trpcmpntIy m suoh nnnocinpo e. II frop, +hr
bench practically reversing the settled law of the
land.
But while the Court are thus jealous of any
intrusion into their province, in the trial Of
causes, they are not equally careful not to ster
out of that province. 1t is becoming notorious
that some of them NEEDLE too often and toe
much with the facts to be tried by the jury
To remedy this growing evil, and keep tn,
substance as well as the name of Jury trials ir
our Courts, bill has been introduced, at thu
present session of the Legislature, restricting
Judges in their charges to Jurles to the law o
the case and, to make this law effective, re
quiring Judges to write out their charge Lefor
giving it to the Jury, and allowing tie Jury tt
have the written charge when making up thei
verdict. We think this bill an admirable one
and can see no possible objection to its passage
And it has another merit, of nearly as mucl
importance as the fact that it will restore Jur
trials to their original significance 1t will Civ
parties an opportunity of trying in the Suprem
Court the precise law that was made in tn
Court below, which under the practice as it no,
is, is not by any means always the case. W
commend this bill to the careful attention of til
Legislature.