Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-07-02
ANTI . s.NoRMON'' TRIAL BY
JURY.

Aub 1AuuA Wy WV -" u ~
2srSi ult. contains a long account {
an interview with J. p. Wilson, [
:. marshal OF Idaho, who had n
rived at that place with four "NIol
mons, . sentenced for infactiOn o
he Edmunds act to various terms Q
imprisonment Of from fifteen +
tWenty-fOur months.
According to the journal he tOl,
some pretty tall stories Of 'sMormOn'
life in Idaho, such as newspaper re
porter love. These We do not pro
pose 10 retail. They are Of the usua
style Of rOmances on this hackneyed
subject aud are a mixture Of a modi
cum Of truth with = mass Of fiction.
But the marshal informed the
newspaper representative in regard
20 the manner in which "MormoDs''
are convicted in Idaho, and one
stem is worthy Of notice. said
Marshal Wilson:
II find the only sure way to convict
Polygzmist on such evidence as We
can usually get, IL TO pick jury from
among the apos'ates, who hate the
hormons very bitterly"
That this is a choice bit OF open
confession which the advocates Of
the beauties Of '.trial by jury''
should copy ami send forth to an
adniring world. Is this the sort
Of thing which the fathers Of cur
country embodied in "the supreme
law Of the lsnI'' as a guaranty Of
protection TO persons accused Of
crime?
ain all criminal prosecutions the
accused shall enjoy the right TO a
speedy and public trial, by an impair
tial jury Of the State and distric;
wherein the crime shall have besn
committed, +" etc.
So says the Constitution Of the 1
United States. Trial by jury implies |
impartiality. The very object and /
intent Of it are 10 secure fairness 10 |
the accused. The court, with all it, |
functionaries, Il organized for the
enforcement of the law. The jury 1
Is empaneled to protect the defend
ant from the undue zeal OF the prose-
cution, and at the same time deal out
justice according TO the facts in evil
denoe and the law Is expounded by
the Judge.
A person charged with crime is
entitled to ga jury Of his peers.''
They should be as nearly as possible
from the class TO which he belongs.
Under the old English law, a fur
eigner on trial was entitled 10 have
at least half Of n jury composed Of
his own countrymen. Challenges !
are allowed for the express purpose
of eliminating from 4 jury all per
cons who have any bias forOr against
the accused. They should be en-
tirely without prejudice.
Courts often go to the extreme OF I
men who have become
familiar with the ease II be tried q
through reading the newspapers or G
its bearings. This is
carried to the length of ..
ahsurdity and 20 as to shut cut from d
he jury box every person or ordin- ii
ary intelligence aud judgment. This q
Is an improper extreme in one di- Z
rection.
To place men on the jury who .
ire known to have feelings against a
he defendant or the class TO which +.
re belongs, is an equally improper h
in the other direction. In n
Iced it Is a greater viSlaiion Of the i,
principles that underlie the system
If trial by jury. For, il it Is better N
hat two guilty men escape than ii
me innocent man be convicted. =.
hen the greater guard should be +,
laced against the presence on the ot
'anel oJur0rs biased against the ac- :,
used.
Whether IN Idaho or in Utah, q,
rial by jury, according 10 the long -,
Established theory auI the argu- ;,
nents in its favor, has almost -
eased to exist. An impartial jury =,
the district Is We'll nigh an i'm n
when "Mormonv is in II
eril under the anti-p7lygamy laws. 70
len have been convicted against ,r
HON no real evidence has been =
dducel. Suspicious circumstances -
AS depicted by a vehement anu ~,
oejudiced prosecuting officer, hav, i,
cen male TO answer for absent evi -
ence, aud the jury being always .o
imposed OF persons picked out be .r
'use OF their antipathy 10 the clas-
creed to which the accused is ut. .,
ched, the odds are all the tim, =,
sAinst the defendant, and he i, =,
without "a friend IN -
'urt'' aud deprived Of that protec :,
IN which he would have in g, a
~ Of his peers" His attorne, ~,
ay be ever so able and earnest. but :,
at counts for little OF nothing with n
court and its officers and a jury all -,
ger 10 convict. -
II may be claimed that it is rar, 81.
at a really innocent person J. No.
nished. And We may be chal A.,
lged to name one. But that doe, -.
affect the fact nor the argument. NC
fore the law properly admins r.
ed every person is supposed 10 b, no,
locent until proven guilty at
evidence. But in thes, -
rritOries the assumption SEEM 80,
be the contrary. \ man accused IL
lnfractiOn Of the ESmunds Law -
in reality to prove his innocence rar
unable TO DO that, and in som, r.-,
IS where he has proved it, coz rbe
ton has followed just the same. -;
to the actual fact We may not b, No
a position to prove anything can.
1t should not enter into the CUES
/. What We claim Is, that n, O.r
n, whatever he may be or is be isn.
ed to be, should be convicted o, ,rr
ne without evidence to establish :, =;
guilt, and if there is a reason. ~
doubt through lack of proof snic
should have the benefit OF the fa-
bt as in other cases. The ruie r.
e is the reverse of this, the ioubi -.
ally goes against him. 7,
n Idaho. a. the L : NT.r.i,,r =