New-York tribune., 1881-12-17
tained, the strength derived from this source
will make the Republican party irresistible.
JUDGFS OR ,JDRIES?

JUDGES, Oh JURIESf
Is trial by jury mistaken This old ques-
ton will be raised again in many minds by the
trial of Guiteau It must be admitted that
nearly all the familiar objections to trial by
iury have been or are likely to be illustrated
! in this case. On the other hand the same
case may furnish new and singularly COM
plete answer to a part of these objections.
The trial has lasted a long time and caused
large expense, and yet it has been a
question whether justice might not be wholly
defeated by the death or prolonged sick
ness of a single juror. The court properly
adjourned only for day, because juror
was sick, but he might have been unable
to continue the hearing for months or
years. If il should become impossible to
go on without new jury, great difficulties
might arise. Important witnesses might die or
become incompetent to testify A new trial
before a new jury might result in very diff
ferent presentation of the case. The prisoner
himself, whose conduct in court and whose
testimony have gone far to convince many as
to his sanity and responsibility, might adopt
new tactics lie might refuse to testify or to
say anything in court, and assuming sad
dened and penitential air, might profess to be
incapable of comprehending the strange
state of mind from which he had emerged.
1t is doubtful whether the record of his testi-
mOny and other remarks in court could be
placed in evidence before a new jury, while
the significant manner and self-betraylnS con-
duct oi the man could not be reproduced. A
new jury might be compelled to judge as to
his sanity under new and very difficult condi-
tiOns But all this cOmDlcatiOn and this un
certainty, with other difficulties Of still grayer
nature, spring from the legal requirement that
the unanimous verdict of a jury, all of whom
have heard all the evidence, shall be required
to convict, even when the case turns wholly
upon the mental cOnd lion of the accused,
without any other disputed question of fact.
1t must be admitted that an ordinary jury
rarely seems to be the right body to pass upon
question of medical, scientific, technical or
legal difficulty, under the usual restriction that
there must be entire unanimity in order to
reach a verdict. When questions of that ma
turc are involved, there would seem to he
some reason for the claim that they should be
decided by special jury or commission of ex-
pcrts. Just as questions purely of law are decided
10y the judge, or, in case Of appeal, by body
of iudgcs who are learned in the law it might
cntifc questions that may arise in % criminal
trial should be decided by a selected and
sworn commission Of persons learned in the
science involved In such Il body there would
be no IN IRE reason for requiring absolute una
mmity than there is for holding that Il Court
can render no decision when either of the
Judges dissentS
But the trial of Guiteau has illustrated the
extreme difficulty of separating questions of
fact. Of science and of Law. In his case it is
iirst IA question Of fact, whether his acts and
words do show a certain condition of mind or
character; second. n question of medical sci
cnce, whether the mental or moral state shown
to exist il a form of insanity; and third, qucs-
ton of law, whether the state found to exist
is that which the law cOntemplates as inyolv-
ing irrcsponsibiity for crime. Perhaps
no Jury can be found that would be |
intelli gent enough to separate every question |
of fact az to the mental or moral condition of |
the accused, from the strictly medical or
strictly legal questions involved. Possibly !
some experts may treat the matter after the |
Spitzlla fashion, first forming a strong belief
that the accused ought or ought not |
To he punished, and then looking for facts
and theories, rhombo-cephalliC or other. to |
Justify that conclusion. 1t might even he diff |
cult for some judges to declare what the law |
provides "a to irreSponsblity without virtually |
deciding other questions OF medical science or |
of fact.
The trial of Guitclu certainly has not pro-
duced any strong public impression in favor of |
a trial 10y such judge as the one who per
mits the accused 10 insult everybody in the |
courtroom, and the female relatives of the
accused to put questions 10 witnesses. If the
question of life or death must be decided either
by ordinary jurics and in the ordinary way,
or by such a judge or q commission that such
a iudgc might select, by all means let us ad-
here to the ordinary juries. Perhaps no jury
on record with all its faults ever did much
to make a country ashamed of its forms of
instice as has been done by the amazing in
and weakness of Judge Cox. What
assurance can there be that we should be more
fortunate in selecting IA judge or judges than
we are in getting honest and capable juries
As a rule, juries try to get at the truth, and
in decent, patient and self-rcspectng way
If they sometimes make mistakes, they do not
make farce of their most solemn duties
Trial by jury will last long time unless civ
ilization manages to get better judges than
some that ara from time TO time exposed in
their unlitncss by the pressure Of q little more
than ordinary responsibility.
--
Once more the Rev. Edward Cowloy comes to the
fore We have takon n great deal Of pains to
derstand his case. We should have beon quite
4. nj |