Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1874-01-15
CURIOSITIES OF JURY TRIALS.

Trial by jury may be, as an advocate
lately styled it, the most magnificent of
institutions; but its magnificence is not
little furnished at times, when, as may
happen by English law, twelve ignorant,
stupid, or crotchety men get together in
the box The last are, perhaps, the most
oaths, they will turn things the clean con-
trary way, rather than run counter to
what they dignity as conscientious scru-
ples. Thanks to a strange craze for nom
conviction that has for some time past
possessed the people of certain histor-
ical town, mot guilty" has become the
stereotyped verdict of its juries, and JUS
tice has been again and again, as it were,
checkmated through her own badly dis
posed pawns.
Not that Warwick Jurors are the only
ones capable of setting evidence on one
side. A Worcestershire jury acquitted a
man in the face of overwhelming testi.
mony, merely because he happened to be
defended by the son of local magnate !;
the foreman of the precious twelve actu-
ally believing they had done something
meritorious, exultingly saluting the squire
day or two afterward When Welsh
Jury thought it right to acquit prisoner
despite an emphatically untavorabe sum-
ming up, Baron Bramwell told them he
hoped they had reconciled their con-
sciences to their verdict, but by what
process they had done it he declared he
was utterly unable to guess. What would
the Baron have said to the twelve obsti-
nate backwoodsmen, who, sitting upon the
body of an Indian, undeniably done to
death by the random shooting of the
- lot do -,
pleasant all around by prOnouncing the
unlucky savage had been worried to
death by dog; and that not satisfying
the unreasonable coroner, altered their
verdict to, KILLED by falling over q
cliffs" and stuck to that version spite of
all remonstrance! 1t must be allowed,
that when jurymen ignore evidence
in this way, they generally err on
the side Of mercy; unlike the jury
OF old, who found the man guilty of MUIR
der against whom there was not a titJle
of evidence, and when challenged by the
Judge, replied through their foreman that
an arocious crime had been committed,
for which somebody ought to be pun
ished, and they did not see why it should
not be the man before them, as well as
anotherl
Once upon a time it was dangerous for
the box to differ from the bench; a jury
daring to assert an opinion Of their own
being liable to find themselves thrown
upon the tender mercies of the Star Cham
ber Instances, indeed, are not wanting
of the Judge taking upon himself TO pun
ish jurymen for not following his direc-
ton. Penn, the Quaker, was insrumen.
tai in freeing them of this terror When
he and Mead were brought before the
Lord. Mayor and the Recorders charged
with preaching in Gracechurch street,
the jury were thrice sent back to recon
slider their verdict, and shape it to the de-
sired pattern. The last time they were
locked up for the night, but the morning
found them of the same mind and mot
guilty" was still their award. Il am
sorry" said the irate Recorder; Il am
sorry you have followed your own judg-
ments and opinions rather than the good
advice that was given you. pray that
my life may be kept out Of your hands |!
But for this the court fines you forty
marks man, and commands imprison.
ment till paid" The $50 marks not be-
ing forthcoming, the twelve really good
men and true were consigned to durance
vile in Newgate. A writ of habeds corpus
soon opened the prison doors; and the
case was referred to full bench of twelve
judges, who pronounced the fining and
Imprisonment contrary to law, The jury
men subsequently obtained exemplary
damages for false Imprisonment, and the
freedom of the box was triumphantly es-
tablished.
Modern jurors are not overpaid for their
labor and loss of time; in the seventeenth
century, they were not paid at all when
trying civil suits, but IL was customary
for the winner 10 give them dinner for
gratitude's sake In criminal cases, in
volving no capital charge, it was the
curious, and not very comprehensive
rule, to pay them only when they acquit-
ted the accused; but this rule was vio-
lated on one special occasion; Sir Thomas
Smith recording, that "in the prosecution
for the Popish plot in Charles lis reign,
the jury had more, and were treated
higher, if they convicted a prisoner than
If they acquitted him" John Ince, writ
ing TO the Archbishop of Canterbury,
anent the jurymen locked up until they
decided upon the outlines or non-guilti-
ness of the seven bishops, says: I'VE have
watched the jury carefully all night at
tending without the door on the stair
head. They have, by order been kept all
night without fire and candle. save only
some basins OF water and towel this
morning about four. The officers and
our servants, and Others hired by us TO
watch the officers, have, and shall CON
stantly attend, but must be supplied with
fresh men To relieve our guard, If need
be. They beg for a candle to
light their pipes, but are denied In case
verdict pass for us, the present consid-
Grafton Will be, how shall the jury be
treated The course is usually, each man
so many guineas, and common dinner
for them all. The quantum is at your
Grace's and nv Lords desire. But II
seems to my poor understanding, that the
dinner might be spared, lest our watcliful
enemies should interpret it against us. 1t
may be ordered thus: to each man -