Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-05-10
WHAT OUR NEIGHBOs DOESN'T
KNOW ABOUT JURIES.

.
Jury trial there is majority either Tor acq nil
tai or conviction. and as the court charged me
Jury Yesterday, the minority ought 20 JOIN 'ue
majority N n can consistently DO so. Jurors
who bang juries because OF the prelnulcs or
opinion, and without regard 10 the evidence ot
perhaps their oHths, are poor cilzens, ana hot
only proiouE the agony OF the prisoner Dut put
the county 20 thousands OF dollars OF unneces
sary expense because OF their stuooornnesS
Either an acQuittal or = conviction shouiu lol-
low fair trial. Hung" juries are deipSlon
and "a snare.
What right has the REGISTER or anybody
else TO try TO iibbet Jurors for not gong
with the majority! What right mas IL 10
insinuate thar they stood without regard
10 the evidence or their Oathst'
Judge PAUL, one of the clearest headed
and most conscientious judges on any bench,
took pains 70 express his belief that eacn
of the Jurors had endeavored cOnscien-
tiOusly 20 do his duty. Has the REGISTER
had better opportunity than Judge Paul
TO reach a conclusion on this Important
phase Of the case.
IL NAV be that 10 would be better 10 sub
nit the guilt or innocence to a majority
vote. but the law requires that the verdict
shall be reached by unanimous vote, holding
the twelfth man as responsible as the
eleven Itmay be that ian acquittal or a
conviction should follow a fa.r trial, out
the law leaves to each juror whether, after
hearing the evidence and the arguments
and the charge by the court, he will decide
in favor of acquital or conviction. one
Juror has all the liberty Of thought ana ac-
ton the twelve have.
Nor has the cost of another trial or OF
twenty other trials anything to do with the
rightOfthe Juror 20 reach his own c0nclu-
sion or thoright of the accused to have his
case passed on BY twelve men each lnde-
nen6ent Of the other and having regard
solely 20 the sanctitv Of their oath.-Itl-
tclligcrccr
Now we turn 10 our neighbours local
columns in the same issue and peruse
the instructions Of Judge PAUL., 70
whom the IutelIjgmcer refers, and we
find that Judge PAUL. used precisely
the same argument used by the REGIS
TER, which the Htclligcnccr says is a
'.spiteiul" attempt TO "Gibbet" the
Jurors. Judge PAUL. shows that jurors
are not so entirely independent of each
others views and conclusions as the
Tp,eIiqencer in its wonderful ignorance
holds they are. Here are Judge PAULL's
words:
The only mode provided bv our const.tu-
tion and laws for deciding questions OF fact
in criminal cases, is by the verdict OF the
Jury. In a large proportion of cases, and
perhaps, strictly speaking, in all cases, alb
sOlute certainty cannot be attained or eX-
pected. Although the verdict to which
each Juror agrees must, of course, be his
own conclusion, and not mere acQ ulesence
in the conclusions of his fellows, yet in
order 20 bring twelve minds to an unani-
nous result, the Jurors should examine
with candOr the questions submitted 70
them. and with due regard and Difference
20 the opinion Of each other. In cOnterrlng
together the jury ought 10 pay proper re-
spect for each others opinions, and listen
with candOr % each others arguments. II
much the larger number of the panel are
fora conviction, the dissenting Juror should
consider whether the doubt in his own
mind is reasonable one which
may make no impression on the
minds of so many men equally
honest, equally intelligent with himself,
who nave heard the same evidence, with
the same attention and with equal desire to
arrive at the truth, and under the sanction
of the same oath And, on the other hand,
if a majority are for acquital, the minority
ought seriously TO ask themselves whether
~
doubt the conclusions of a Judgment which
is not concurred i'm by most of those with
whom they are associated, and distrust the
weight or ehiciencyof that evidence, which
fails 20 carry conviction 70 the minds of
their fellows. The jury room is surely no
place for pride of opinion or for espOuSing
or maintaining. in the spirit of controversy,
either side of "a cause The single object
20 be there effected isto arrive at a true
verdict; and this can only be done by delib-
GRAFTON, mutual concessions and a due
difference 70 the opinions of each other.
We would like the InteliigeRcGr TO
show at what point the REGISTER went
beyond the plain instructions of Judge
PAUL., in its criticism of the jury.
Ifall iuries were guided by the Intel
Hgcpccr'S absurd notions of iuryman's
duty Justice, through trial by jury,
might as well shut up shop. Not
one Jury in one hundred is unani-
nous on its first ballot. Hence, if
concessions were not made in the Jury
room not one jury in one hundred would
agree on a verdict TO quote Judge
PAUL. again, The single object to be
there effected is to arrive at true ver-
dict; aud this can only be done by delib-
GRAFTON, mutual concessions and q due
defcrcucc to the opinions Of each other"
NEBRASKA reports rs inches Of snow.
Is Nebraska trying to work the press
for summer resort ado