The Placer herald., 1866-06-30
THE TRIAL OF MR., DAVIS,
SUMMARY OF THE POINTS INVOLVED.

The recent references TO the trial Of Mr.
Davis have called public attention to this
subject, which, very naturally, in a large de-
gree interests the public mind
The indictment in the usual form for ,rea,
son has been found by the Grand Jury, in
the United States Circuit Court. at Norfolk
Mr. Davis is Indicted under the Act of
1890, under which the penalty, on eonvic-
tion, is death. ~
lie could have been indicted under the
act Of July 81, 1861, for a sed,io,,s conspi
racy, the punishment of which is fine, not
over $4,000 and Imprisonment with or
without labor, not over six years.
One OF the most important points is the
drawing of the petit jury, who are charged
with the trial of the prisoner. rrl
lbe jury is to be drawn according to lot,
or otherwise, according to the mode prac.
ticed in the State for selecting juries for the
highest courts Of law. The number of
ton Of the Court as to common law.
The act of July 10, 1862, repeals so much
Of the act of 1889 as requires, in cases pun
shable with death, that twelve petit jurors
be summoned from the county where the
offence was committed
Under the act Of June II, 1862, no per-
son is allowed to sit on the Jury who was in
any degree Of completely with the rebellion.
This is an act Of controlling Importance, be,
cause it insures that the trial shall be before
a loyal jury. o
Mr.. Davis cannot be tried by any of his
contederates. His fate will rest entirely
with his political OpOonents
! The jury must Oe unanimous, or there
can be no verdict. This is an nvariable rule
OF the common law, and has existed time
whereof the memory of man runneth not to
the contrary.
The presiding judge can rule authoria
lively on questions Of evidence as they may
arise in the progress of the trial, bat as the
jury always, in criminal cases, return gen.
eral verdict, of guilty or not guilty, they are
practically the judges of the law AS we'll as
the fact, and there is no appeal from their
decision.
There has never been any exception to
this principle in the common law, except
that in cases of libel it had frequently been
determined by the Court of Kings Bench
that the only question for the consideration
Of the jury, in criminal prosecutions for libel,
was the fact Of publication and the truth Of
the inuendos. and that the Court alone was
competent to determine whether the subject
of the publication was or was not libel.
And it was for this ruling of Lord Mansfield
that the celebrated Junius SO bitterly attack
ed Lord Mansfield. Lord Camden, the friend
of liberty, differed from Lord Mansfield, and
the matter was finally put to rest by the
memorable act of Parliament of 80 George
ILL.,, known as Mr.. Fox's Act, which deter
mined the law against Lord Manstield's iudo'
ment, by expressly recognizing the right of
the jury to determine the facts and law Of
the case by general verdict of guilty or
not guilty.
Tie trial can only end in one of three
ways:
l. BY verdict OF guilty.
2. BY verdict of not guilty.
3. BY the inability Of the jury to agree.
In the event of this alternative arising,
the first question which will arise is, whether
Mr.. Davis will be entitled to bail!
The Constitution provides that sin all
criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial"
In determining whether Mr.. Davis, after
more than years close Imprisonment,
would be considered, in the event of the dis.
agreement of the jury, to be discharged on
bail, would be question of legal discretion,
to be determined by the Judge.
By the celebrated Hobeas Corpus Act of
81 Charles H. it was provided, 6: "Tbat
every person committed for treason or fell
ony shall, if be require it, the first week of
the next term. or the first day of the next
session of Oyer and Terminer, be indicted in
that term or session, or else admitted to bail,
unless the Kings witnesses cannot be pro.
duced; and if not indicted and tried in the
second term or session, he shall be dischar
ged from his imprisonment for such imputed
offence"
It is not likely our judges would take a
less favorable view of the prisoners applca
ton than in the rule furnished by this statute
The serious question would be. how many
terms of the Court have passed since the
prisoner was first arrestedl Ills counsel
would in all probability contend that by in
tendment of law United States Courts were
holding their regular terms for the last
twelve months in the State of Virginia, or
at least might have done SO.
further provision of the Constitution
might perhaps alec, in the event of n disa.
greemeut Of the Jury, be invoked 10 behalf
of the prisoner-thst one which sets forth
as follows: "Nor shall any person be subject,
for the same offence, to be twice put in jeo
pardy Of life or limb"
The meaning Of this rule is, that defend
ant is in legal jeopardy the moment a petit
jury is charged with the decision Of bis case.
But though there has been some difference
of opinion on the point, it may be assumed
that when the jury are discharged from the
further and 6nal decision Of the case, be.
cause of their inability to agree, the prisoner
may be held to be tried anew. At one time
in England, where the jury could not agree
ON a canital case the Judge. instead Of dis.