The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-05-02
JURY vERDICTs BY MAJORITY VOTE.


One of the remarkable things is the ten
acity with which the jury system requiring
unanimous verdict is chung to. 1t is SIM
ply inexplicable that the rule should be con-
tinued in the face Of its denunciation by
lawyers, judges, the press and the intelli-
gent public. Changes and improvements
in other directions are constantly being
made. Legislatures do not hesitate to
overturn systems which have become an
tiquated; there is little veneration for rules
and practices which are out of date and be-
hind the age; there is recognition that
the times are progressive, and law makers
endeavor to keep up with the process
sion. But while everybody, seemingly,
is ready to certify that the jury system is
ridiculous if not preposterous In its unanim-
ity feature, and the best minds in all
enlightened countries, and especially in
America, are in favor of change, we go
along enduring senseless rule generation
after generation. A community forms a
state constitution, and with the enlighten-
ment of centuries to guide the trainers of
the instrument, and long years of ugly
experience to serve as a guide to avoid
what is not desirable, the jury rule just as
1t has always been is incorporated and
fastened upon protesting puqic. Every
year amendments to constitutions are pro-
posed, but the jury system 'relic of bar
barism" is not disturbrd.
In the May Forum SIGMUND ZEIsLER, a
prominent lawyer of Chicago, has paper
ha ~, ;,t, l. -
arguments which have been made against
the rule Of unanimity and pleads for YER
diets by majority vote. Not the least in
teresting part of his article is that in which
he tells Of the attitude of leading men to-
wards the system for more than a century.
he says that EMLYN, as early as 1870,
makes an eloquent appeal for the abolition
OF the rule. ITALIAN, in the supplemental
notes to his middle Ages" designates it
a preposterous relic Of barbarism.' The
English common law commissioners of 1881
condemn the rule in very positive language
and propose that the jury shall not be kept
in elaboration longer than twelve hours.
unless at the end of that period thew
unanimously agree to apply for further
time; and that at the expiration of
twelve hours, or of such prolonged
time for elaboration, if nine of them con-
cur in verdict, it shall be taken. DR..
FRANCIS LIEBER, in his "Civil Liberty and
Self-Government," and more particularly
IN an article in the Ameriedn Ldlc Register
for 1867, is outspoken in his condemnation
of the practice of requiring unanimous
verdicts. BENTHAM, in his Essay on the
Art of Packing Juries.' says it could not
have been the work of calm reflection.
working by the light of experience. and
calls it 'no less extraordinary than bar
barous." Judge COOLEY, in his edition of
BLACKSTONE, characterizes it as ''repug-
nant to all experience Of human conduct.
passions, and understandings" and further
says that sit could hardly in any age have
been introduced into practice by DELHI
crate act of the legislature" Ex-Governor
KoERNER, of Illinois, calls it ''the illogical
unanimity system, which has become a
great source of corruption and consequent
denial Of justice" In 1876, Governor CAR
PENTER, of Iowa, in message to the legis
lature of that state, called it IAN antique
absurdity which has too long fettered the
administration of Justice" In the same
year, committee of the Wisconsin legis-
lature reported in favor of submitting to
the people of that state q constitutional
amendment empowering a less number
than twelve TO return verdict"
1t would seem that one jury trial, either
civil or criminal, should be enough to cause
the prompt abolition Of the system which
requires twelve men to agree on a PROPOSE
ton. Not one verdict in hundred is a
conscientious one; not one in hundred is
Rs 1t would be if the question were left to
one man to decide. The jurors give and
take, rarely agreeing at the outset. If il is
question Of damages verdict is arrived
at by process of averages; if the question
of guilt is to be passed upon, the punish
ment of the accused is taken into account
and compromise is effected, those who
think the crime is peculiarly heinous WELD
ing something to those who regard it light
ly, and verdict between the extremes
is reached. A friend of sutton or
Of criminal gets on the Jury, and
IN the face of right and
in defiance of the evidence brings the trial
to naught by standing out against the
eleven. The dread of passing a night in
the jury room will induce men to agree to a
verdict in the rightfulness of which they
do not believe. In fact, there are mighty
few verdicts which are honest ones, and the
law which compels twelve men to agree is
responsible for the dishonesty.
But, when one reads the history of the
efforts that have been made to improve the
system and make it somewhat in harmony
with intelligence, he can find little encour-
agement to believe that the relief will
come.