The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1878-06-05
THE JURY SYSTEM OF TRIALS.

From time to time we hear complaints
growing out of the fact that juries- fail to
agree, and here and there we we have astute
refOrmers who would abolish the jury sys-
tenn altogether, and subject life, liberty and
the rights of property and every other right
to the whim, caprice or prejudice of one
man styled judge. Trial by jury, however,
is not likely to be abandoned and
since this is admitted, the propriety
of compelling juries to agree upon
a verdict in all cases is a matter of no
small importance. Whenever a Judge
insists upon a verdict by compelling the
jury to remain in session when informed
that disagreement rather than an agree
msnt has been arrived at a great wrong is
committed. There is" says an exchange,
"a belief, founded upon medieval practice,
that certain testimony in a case must have
the same effect upon the mind of every
Juror, and that an honest difference of opin-
ION can not exist in Jurors minds. Hence
failure of jury to agree implies dereliction
of duty, deserving of grave punishment.
a jury until recently was compelled to
find verdict under penalty of starvation,
and in very many cases unquestioDablv
the honest convictions of jurymen have been
'overridden by privation and physical ex-
'haustion. This obsolete practice of forcing
men to utter an opinion that they do not
really hold is clearly opposed to justice, and
the motion of Judge Morris for a new trial
in the case of John Cowen against the New
York Stats Zeitung for a new trial, on the
ground that the verdict given was not vol
'untary, goes to the very foundation of the
jury system. 1t appeared that after the ad
'journment of the court, the clerk had
officially informed the jury that they could
have no supper unless they agreed, and
they promptly did so. Now the honesty of
a jury is pretty well provided for. The
jurors oath is an excellent guarantee OF his
honesty. The right of challenge protects the
interests of the lihgants sufficiently. The
attempt to force twelve men to a verdict
to which they can not honestly agree aims
at dishonesty. To this practice is due the
'levity with which verdicts are given. When
a jury has been about evenly divided, it has
been sometimes the case that the twelve
have left the verdict to the decision of
chance, and cases have been determined by
"a game of euchre or some other sport. The
Decentralization which must attend upon
such practice is subversive of the whole
principle of trial by jury. In determining
'the amount of damages one juror can and
often does overturn the verdict of the re-
manning eleven. The custom is to az
'gregate the sums thought right by the
Jurors and divide by twelve, so that
if one juror insist that a plaintiff
should have verdict OF 100000, and the
other eleven fail to see why he should
have 81, the compromise will be a verdict
of 50 1913, whereas the chances are largely
in favor of the belief that the plaintiff is
'undeserving of anything. This attempt to
'extort a verdict is doubtless the source of
many of those acts of injustice of which
juries are VIGOROUSLY guilty. The object of
the law and of all jury trials Is to obtain
Justice. 1t is tar more to the public inter
est that injustice should be avoided than
that a verdict should be arrived at, and
therefore the practice of compelling jurors
TO reconcile opposing opinions at the ex-
pense of their oath, is opposed to the public
welfare. 1t is probably that in the case
under consideration a new trial will be
granted"
These arguments are conclusive, and
ought to have weight with those who insist
upon verdicts, though brought about by
means not in harmony with justice.