The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-18
How Jurors Can Remedy tho Opinios
Obstacle.

O09t0ctcs
The vexatious exclusion from jury box Of
Intelligent newspaper readers again challenges
public attention. Our Albany Solons are dis
cussing the Bedford and Hackett bill in
tended to alleviate the evil. But, after all, q.
partial remedy remains with each citizen. So,
long as the law Is expounded as 1t has been.
the candidate for the jury box should school
himself to refrain not only from forming, or
expressing an opinion as to the guilt or inno-
cence Of notorious criminal, but even from
allowing an impression about IL to enter or
remain upon his mind. Those accustomed to
Court proceedings have observed how eiibly q
juror avows that he has an impression or
opinion on the subject Of the pending trial.
He does this obviously to escape the bust
ness inconvenience or personal annoyance
of being juryman. The law Is 80
liberal on the matter that even with
out an easy conscience tho juror may 50
answer as to escape service. Reform in the
Jury box becomes now as important as reform
at the polls was last. November. Tens or
thousands of electors who usually found an
excuse for voting straight ticket or for en-
tirely absenting themselves from the ballot
boxes then rallied for reform. The large
number of newspaper readers who usually
escape jury duty now have it In their
power to accomplish by their own deter
mination nearly all which statute can.
There Is no reason why juror should make
up an opinion or even receive an impression
upon the absolute guilt or innocence
of burglar, forger, or a man
slayer whose arrest he may have read
about. And there is still less reason
why jurors in the box, who, as triers prelimi-
narily, pass upon the fitness of their fellows,
should err in liberality toward prisoner. All
classes seem to forget that the people possess
rights In the matter, and that while innocence
should be protected, brazen-faced guilt ought
not to be petted nor the immunity of the pub
lie, through example, disregarded.
The present absurd rule Of this State
belongs to an age when there were no news
papers. Usually when the reason of a law
ceases the latter also loses validity. Indeed,
this Is maxim. In the olden time, whenever
a man living near where the crime was COM
mitted had formed or expressed an opinion,
or derived an impression about the criminal. it
was so because the matter had come under
taproom or wayside discussion and through
hearsay or colored facts. These old times
village talks were apt to engender partisan
ship and prejudice. Such discussions were
probably few, and not calculated to interfere
proportionally with the entire number ofjurors
summoned. But now that the newspaper
visits every household, and all the incidents OF
crime are published to every citizen, this
ancient rule takes absurd application; and
unless jurors themselves cut the Gordian
knot of this absurdity by resolving not to
easily fall into the trap laid by some lawyers,
who manufacture technicalities and frenzy
defenoes as readily as their clients sometimes
invent interviews of innocence, this city will
become yet more the scott Of her neighbors,
especially when we see that the new law is
only to take application six months hence.