New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-05-25
ABSURDITyES IN OUR CRIMINAL COURTS.

! are competent W suppose WAS hOIAo"' "-i'
mature, but Which we are disposed TO suspect
from the character of the jury was not pro-
1 found, the jurors sitting in the Foster case
were unable TO reach any conclusion IA to his
guilt or Innocence, or the degree of his OFFEND
ing, and were locked up for the night.
This hesitation in framing verdict
in case whore the facts of the
murder were so clearly established and unds-
puted, and the malice and Fermentation OF
the murderer so clearly apparent, would ap-
pear very remarkable but for two or three
circumstances developed on the trial. Besides
affecting this present issue in winch all New
York is so deeply interested, these develop
ments serve to illustrate some of the many
absurdities of that jury system which was
once the pride of the law and The paila-
dunn Of liberty, but which cOrrupt pIac-
| tice in the courts has made disgrace
| 10 the law and dangerous to the safety II not
| the liberty, of the people. We may be par
doncd for reference to these points at this
| time, when the verdict in Fosters case is un
| known, because the remarks, though based on
| it, arc applicable to dozens Of other trials
lately held in this community and. indeed, TO
the common and corrupt practice now gen
orally in vogue in this State.
In the first place, the Court has gone de-
libcIately to work to secure tho most ignorant
and negative characters possible as juryIncn
to decide between this man and the people.
Some have said that it does not follow that
because q man happens, as these jurors pro-
fees, TO he ignorant of the circumstances Of
this particular homicide, that they are lacking
in general intelligence. But it does follow, as
| ,cin rl,n
of great atrocity; it was the talk Of tho city
! for days. it was detailed at length - all Che
daily papers, and commented on Tor sew
eral days after It's occurrence. 10 con-
fess ignorance of the facts "a told
in the papers is to admit virtually that one
does not read the daily journals habitually;
and how many men of average intelligence,
fit to sift facts from opinions and conjectures,
able to decide upon right and wrong in mat
| ters of fact and law, neglect their daily jour
nal2 If we are to c0nsider The Foster Jurors
men of average Intelligence, the answer is
about one in hundred, for we believe some
what more than one thousand citizens were
summoned before the present jury was Sc
lected. The proportion is not llattering, Ger
tainly. If their order Of intelligence was
not shown to be low by the exam
nation which they underwent, their INDIGESTION
of character was clearly proven. Not one of
them answered the questions put to them with
clearness and positiveness. They were certain
only of their ignorance and impartiality. 1t is
usually supposed that men of intelligence
are less open to prciudces than ignorant ones
| but the law, under present practices, CONSTITUTES
knowledge to include prejudice, and trusts its
exposition to the most incapable whom
! it is possible to drum up. The preu-
diccs of positive men are much to
be dreaded, but who would not rather
trust them, if honest and intelligent, than
men of such negative dispositions that they
side with the last artful lawyer who addresses
them? The law which requires that jurors
should be ignorant of the facts of the case to
be brought before them does not demand that
they should never have heard or read of it.
They could not perhaps, legally be jurors if
personally cOgnizant OF the facts but the hear
! ing or reading of them need not disqualfy
any man, for it is folly to suppose that an in
telligent juror cannot separate in his mind the
legal and valid testimony he hears on trial,
and the narrative which he may have read in
the papers. Certainly an unintelIigent one could
not and, therefore, the greater reason for ell
| cNubHB uC StiHuiiu VI july HlVl, lHStcdu Oh
lowering it, as the present legal practices tend
Having selected the most ignorant jurors
attainable the next proceeding of the Court
is to mystily and cOnfound them as much as
| possible. They are chosen at random; they
are generally as ignorant of law as OF fact,
and have to depend for the former on the
Court as completely as the witnesses for
the latter. long course of legal study is
deemed necessary to qualify a Judge to adj
minister the law i'll matters of property
merely; but twelve men without special
legal training, and sometimes without good
common school education, are supposed to be
competent after once hearing the law stated,
to dispense justice in matters of life and
death. This seems the hight Of absurd
ity and 80, it would seem, skillful lawyers
plicate their weakest causes by obtaining
multiplicity of charges by the Court
For instance, the facts were plainly put
before the jury in the Foster case. There
was no chance to distert them; and few men
with common sense and that intu:ive knowl-
edge of justice possessed by all persons how
ever ignorant of law would have long hesitated
over them. But the skillful counsel of the
prisoner submitted to the Judge, ana through
him the jury were charged upon not less than
twonty-threc points of law. In many of these
the nice distinctions between what is law and
what Is not were stated after a style which
would have Du,zlod the best read law