St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-06-21
DIsAGREED JuRIEs.

BIArZ murder case is another one of
those too frequent incidents in the his
tory of court trials which tend to unset
tie public faith in the jury system.
However much the jurymen may have
differed in their opinions, there was
scarcely division of sentiment outside
OF the court room as to what the YER
dict ought to have been. These MUIR
der trials are always expensive, and the
expense has to be borne by the state;
therefore it is especially desirable that
when verdict can be reached at all
consistent with reason, and with the
facts as they have been developed in
the progress of the case, the state shall
be spared the expense of another trial.
More than that, the trial of a case like the
one which has engaged the attention OF
Judge KELLY's court for the last week
is more or less demoralizing in its effect
on public morality by reason of the sa-
laciOus nature of the evidence and OF
the incidents connected with the crime,
to say nothing of the qualification it
affords the morbidly curious. In the
even course of administering justice
which our courts invariably pursue. 1t is
utterly impossible to avoid bringing all
the filth which underlieS these cases to
the surface; and, consequently, it should
become an additional incentive to the
iurymen to agree upon a verdict. so as
to prevent repetition of the unsavory
proceedings.
Still, as each juryman is bound by his
oath to try the case according to the law
and the evidence, and is solely dependent
on his individual conscience for light by
which to reach an honest conclusion, no
one has right to impeach the motives
of a divided jury or to question the sim
cerity of their differences in opinion.
But the fact that two men of equal in
same statements of case, the same evil
dence, and the same law bearing upon
the case, and then form entirely
different conclusions as to what a
righteous verdict should be, is Of itself
a lamentable indication of the weakness
of the jury system. With this illustra-
ton of the fallibility of human judy
ment before us, we wonder whether or
not any jury cases are ever decided
strictly in accordance with the princi-
piles of eternal justice. Still, we have to
do the best we can in arriving at correct
conclusions; and where twelve men i'm
partially chosen from the body of the
people agree upon a verdict, it must be
accepted as right.
1t is only when the twelve men fail to
agree that dissatisfaction is aroused,
and particularly in those cases where
one or two of the men exhibit more OBJ
stinacy than judgment. Every man
ought to rely on his own judgment
and be guided by the dictates of his
own conscience, and when under such
impulses he holds out against over
whelming odds he invests himself with
a degree of moral heroism that attracts
public admiration. But where, as it
sometimes happens, the juryman closes
his eyes to the law and the evidence and
substitutes stubbornness for Judgment;
or, as it not infrequently occurs, yields
to corrupting influences, then it is our
boosted jury system becomes bywOrd
and a reproach. And the very fact that
no method has yet been devised for
separating the sheep from the goats in
the jury box, for singing out only
honest, impartial and Intelligent jury
men, makes it possible that the jury
system may yet prove such failure as
to necessitate its adjustment.