The southern sentinel. (Winnfield, La.) 1883-1910, 1885-02-20
GETTING A JURY.

A jury trial ina criminal case is
in one particular at least very like
a prize fight. In entertainments
of the latter sort, the two bruisers
shy their castors into the ring, and
with grace peculiar to gentlemen
of their craft, leap lightly overthe
ropes and seat themselves in oppo-
site corners. They have their
fighting toggery on, an excited
crowd is yelling around them, and
a green horn would suppose that
the battle was to begin at once.
But 1T is not to be. 1t seems that
the professors of the manly art
have not the most implicit conf
dence in each other. A referee
must be agreed upon, and the agree
ment is often long delayed-some
times till set of sun. Four, six or
| eight hours are taken up by this
| wranglc, and when at last the fight
| does begin it will most likely be
over and done with inside of half
hour.
So it is with the jury trial. We
remember a murder trial which
took place few years ago in this
city. That case occupied twenty
two days, nineteen of which were
occupied in the selection of jury.
Usually when the State has strong
case tie lawyers for the prosecu-
ton are satisfied with jurors of
fair character and sound and un-
biased minds. But when the de-
fensc has uphill work before it its
effort is to secure men who are
weak mentally or morally. 1t has
one immense advantage: it is al
lowed to challenge twice as many
jurors as the prosecution is. For
instance, if five persons are under
trial for the same offense, each of
them il entitled to twelve challen-
ges, aud altogether they can use
sixty Ct ges. Inthe same case
the prosecution is accorded only
thirteen challenges. 1t is easy to
see, therefore, that the defense can
challenge more good men than the
State can challenge bad men or un-
| st men.
| It is true that either side can
challenge "for cause" any number
| of jurors. If a man AYERS that be
has conscientious scruples against
capital punishment, if he admits
that his mind is biased one way Oh
the other, that he is incapable OF
rendering verdict in accordance
with the evidence and the law, il
it appears that he is hopelessly ig-
norant or stupid, or if it can be
shown that he is dishonest, then be
will be discharged without either
side losing one of the number OF
challenges to which the law cnti-
ties it. But the counsel engaged
| in the trial often know certain
things about a juror which in thcil
! judgment unfit hrm for a seat in
the jury box, but which are moi
covered by the law, or which car
not be immediately proven. The
prosecuting attorney may know,
for example, that the juror was
once defended against some charge
by one of the counsel for the de-
fense. He would have reason te
fear that the jurors mind would
be too much biased by a feeling OF
gratitude. 1t would be the same
If the jurors father or brother had
been defended by one of the coun'
sci for the accused. The prosecu.
tion could not challenge that juror
for cause, and could only get rid o1
him by reducing by one the mum.
Der Of challenges to. which it might
be entitled without showing cause
Thus it happens sometimes thai
d case is virtually decided before
one particle of testimony has beer
presented. The fight is over tht
jury, not before the jury in suct
cases. We are of the opinion
therefore, that the defense il
| granted an advantage under Oul
present system that is beyond rea'
j eres - pfcn,,eine ss a.