Huntsville gazette., 1889-11-16
INTELLIGENT JURORS.

INTELLIGENT JURORS.
Why Reading Men Should Not Be Excluded
From the jury Box.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
recently had occasion to consider the
question Of excluding reading, think
ing men from jury service because
they had formed passing opinions,
based on accounts read in newspapers.
The judges said: f-~r
We must either recede and go back to thu
practice of an age when ignorance OF passing
events constituted characteristic OF the time!
and exclude every Juror who has formed al
opinion, even the slightest, or we must stant
abreast with the present age. when every re
markable event of to-day is known all over the
country tomorrow, and exclude only those
whose opinions are so fixed as to be prejudg
ments or have been formed upon the known
evidence in the case. 1t is needless to say the
world moves and carries us with it, and II we
lag behind we must commit the trial OF the
most important causes in life to those so igno-
rant that their dark minds have never been
smitten with the rays Of intelligence.
This states the question pointedly
and fully. If the "ideal juror" is a
man without impressions, opinions or
information concerning matters OF
general public interest and notoriety
he can be found only after search
through the most ignorant and litter
ate classes in the. community. A crime
like murder at once arrests the atten-
tion of every intelligent man in the
section of the country where it
is perpetrated, and even men
who are not regular newspaper
subscribers and who read with diff
Guilty and have to spell out big words
buy papers on such occasions and give
them close perusal. Ignorance il
such cases is confined to the most
stupid illiterates. If men are to be
considered impartial in the degree
that they are shown to be grossly ig-
norant the jury box must be filled, as
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court says.
with creatures whose "dark minds
have never been smitten by the rays
of intelligence" This result can not
be avoided unless a way is found to
put in the jury box reading men who
admit that they know something
about case and have formed an i'm
preston of more or less strength.
T, Intelligent people who read newspa-
pers look daily for the latest and best
authenticated accounts of current
events, and are in the habit of modi-
flying or correcting their opinions from
time to time in the light of further or
better Information. Such people may
have an unfavorable opinion of the de-
PENDANTS in a case, but if the evidence
adduced in court should tend to prove
innocence or to raise strong doubt
as to guilt they would approve ver-
dict of acquittal and admit that
their first impression was wrong,
This, too, although they were nos
acting under oath and had no response
bility in the matter. With still greater
care and higher sense of response
bility would an intelligent, conscien-
tious man act after he had taken the
oath of a juryman to render a true
verdict based exclusively on the law
and the evidence adduced in court
Under such circumstances he would
pay no further attention to any opin-
ion he had formed before being sworn
as juror, and if the evidence war
ranted it he would not hesitate in
returning a verdict in direct conflict
with his original impression or opin-
ion. He would say that the opinion
he had formed largely on the basis of
hearsay and rumor was not warranted
by the sworn legal testimony. The
more intelligent the man the greater
the probability that he would act with
strict impartiality. He would be on
the alert to guard against any possible
prejudice in his own mind, and the
fact that he had once formed passing
opinion against the defendants, if it
affected him at all, would be Ii kelly to
make him lean the other way when
called upon to render a verdict. Such
a man, rather than an ignoramus who
has no information or opinion regard
ing matter of general public inter-
est, ought to be considered an "ideal
juror. - Chicago Tribune. -