Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-05-13

Con, o,u,nr the Jury Law-How Fair Trials
May be Secured.

May IL, 1892.
~. Enron. The difficulties expert
"a he last few years in our State,
en- Oo,ablv i'm the northern Panhandle
Auu .tiss i'm obtaining legally qualified
S'I,-,,,en ON account Of existing local
!-l{ n5ice suggests the importance Of
smendiug our jury law so as 70 ooVlate
.bese ANTIQUITIES. understand that IN
~ state of Virginia the jury law IS
..b tbst the Judge, when he deems u
i..-ssbIe has the power TO issue an or
~, Jirscting Jurors to be summoned
~ ether counties. IL seems
.lO'' ma this would be an excel
and wise provision 70 add to
49, irrv law. This method IS mucn
49, economical than change OF
40 besides substantial justice is
,,ore likely 20 be obtained In this way
ar5 the verdicts stand the test before
.be Courts. The accused whether
-,.l,v mr. innocent is guaranteed, under
-, Constitution Of the State, fair and
'-.,srtiaI trial, and 10 is the sworn duty
80 Courts 10 see that 10 is obtained
.L.r7b tine heavens fall The COnstl-
.-,i,, contains no more wise and safe
..-,gisiop. How can this constitutional
,-9vision be honestly complied with
,s6an the Jury is obtained from com
unity where some startling
and heinous ofense has oeen
rommItted, and the lerdlcJ
SUBSTANTIALLY agreed upon 10y the citl-
,.r.l az the time Of the occurrence and
Store tbe trial? The chances are about
es1rs to one hundred. A man may
s,gsa~ I'm answer TO the judges Ques-
.s,rs that be has not formed nor ex-
crossed am opinion, aud that he believes
sscaD render verdict in accordance
with tine law and evidence, nOtwlth-
.-adirg the fact that the community has
fixed and uuaIterab.e opinion pro or
ror. and il that juryman Is an lntelil-
cent man. as be ought 90 be-, the chances
arc largely that be is fully cOgnizant OF
tbat upoIic opinion or prejudice and II
bas no doubt, more or less influence
IN him when he comes 20 render
his verdict. This certainly is not such
iurvman as the constitution
CONCENTRATES. The chances are remote
iora man 10 obtain fair and Impartial
,riaI 10 which he is clearly
entitled regardless of his guilt
or innocenSe, before jury
aker from community where local
mb.icoUinion and prejudice are strongly
and universally developed. To amend
rbe iury law as Indicated would go far
10 enable the Court 90 give the accused
fair and impartial trial The Court
no doubt many times feels that the
facts do not quite Justify it in granting
a change of venue, but 40 the same time
the Court is fully coguiZant OF the dlth-
cuIt'es i'm obtaining fair and impartial
i1ry in that community. Ia that event
1--WE the Court the power TO order
he jury or any part Of IL
mmmomed from the other counties
7f the State. substantially the add
ti0nal expense of this method would
only De the additional mileage, aud
probably would be cheaper in the end,
because there would be less mis-trialS,
the verdicts would more likely stand
the test, and the people saved further
expense. i was present az New Cum
ber.and, in Hancock County, when the
Jury was examined In the Van Baker
trial. All but one or possibly TWO OF
that Jury told the Court that they had
either formed or expressed an opinion
or both, but at the same time that Opin-
ION was not such but that 10 could
be changed by evidence. The
Court admitted them as compe-
tent jurors It was as plain
then as afterwards, that that jury i'm
tended 20 hang Van Baker If il could.
He was no doubt prejudiced, or local
prejudice so strong against him, that
the burden Of proof was thrown upon him
90 convince that jury Of his innocence.
Notwithstanding the law explicitly says
that the accused is presumed 20 be In
u0cent until he is proven guilty. One
old man was so AMIGOS 60 get on that
jury that when the Court fully explain
ed 10 him that being over age he could
be- excused if he so desired he refused
20 avail. himself of that privilege. Van
Baker may have been guilty as
charged in the Indictment, bat
40 the same time the Supreme
Court very properly set aside
tle verdict of that jury. The Court In
this case thought that the facts did not
justify granting q change Of venue at
that time, yet no doubt could he have
done so the Judge would have taken the
iIrymen from other counties removed
from the local prejudice. Tn that event
The first verdict, whateyerit might have
been, in the Van Baker case, doubtless
would have stood the test aud further
expense ceased. To give the accused a
fair and impartial trial before jury
taken from "a community where the
public mind is inGamed for OF against
him is almost an imDoSSibiity.
The local prejudice, public opin-
Ion or bias more or less
Affects the jurymen in rendering their
verdict The court usually, and very
probably, viii set such verdictS aside
and then a new trial follows. To amend
the jury law as indicated, certainly
ought 20 remedy many OF the difficulties
that we now have 10 contend with, and
would be In the direction Of economy.
Lei the Legislature make this amend
ment when it cOnveneS next winter.
The jury ought 90 be removed from
all possibility of local prejudice, opinion
and bias, iu order that eyen-handed JUS
tce mayo '0bta.ned. JUSTICE.