The morning call., 1893-12-20
Criminal Cases Might Be Decided
by Vote.
ONE.MAN POWER DANGEROUS.
Leading Lawyers Express Opinions
on Necessity for Change i'm
the Jury System.

Ing OF MIS-. Kate Critics, Judge Wallace
made a statement about juries which
caused many attorneys to think of his
words.
The jury that tried O'Neill stood eleven
for conviction on a charge of murder in
the second degree and one for manslaugh-
ter. The twelfth juror was stubborn.
he would neither give nor take and cared
nothing for the preponderance of belief in
ONeilps guilt. 1t was a case of man
slaughter or nothing. in his opinion. and as
he held persstently to his idea the eleven
men swung into line just for harmony.
Besides, staying in bleak room over
night without beds or other comforts was
not pleasant prospect for these eleven
citizens. Giving the defendant the benefit
of whatever doubt might possibly arise
they considered safer than finding the
truth and standing by 1t; and as for JUS
tice-well, they could ask, "What are you
gong to do about ?" Anyhow, one man
Influenced eleven to vote as he wished and
stutify themselves.
Judge Wallace thought it was so pointed
case that he could not resist speaking his
mind regarding criminal juries. He said
it suggested the advisability of insttuting
a radical change IN the jury system relat-
ing to trials OF criminal cases. This should
be similar to the change made in civil
juries, which provides that nine votes out
of the twelve is sufficient for a verdict. In
criminal trials, however, one vote blocks
justice either way. One man has absolute
power over the trial. Judge Wallace held
that the interests of justice would be
served better by substituting majority
vote for giving verdict. He is supported
by the ablest attorneys in this city.
Among the lawyers who look on Judge
NIrll x.+ith ..
liam NJ. Pierson.
II think so myself" said he. when asked
for his opinion upon the Judges sugges-
ton. Nine votes should do in criminal
cases to give verdict. Judge Wallace is
right about this thing. This One-man
power ought to be terminated, and in its
stead should be three-fourths vote, as in
civil cases."
How could the amendment be effected ?"
was asked.
''Onlg by an amendment to the consti-
tuition.
1.-The only exception to the rule would
be in political cases, for instance, treason.
which should be tried by jury of twelve.
treason Is very important crime. All
the powers of the Government would be
against the defendant. and then 1 would
give man every chance for his life. In
political cases, or cases involving partisan
ship, party prejudice might convict man
who is innocent. and therefore. he should
have all the safeguards possible. But in
all other criminal cases l am in favor of
nine votes for conviction. The plan has
worked admirably in civil cases, and it
prevents crank or corrupt man from
battling Justice"
I'm nv opinion" said Henry E. High.
ton, "the failures of Justice In this State
largely result from the concentration OF
influence in direction either Of conviction
or acQuittal, by which the processes of the
law are involuntarily affected. Men are
rallroaded TO acquittal and they are rail-
roaded to conviction. A portion OF the
press deals with criminal cases of fla
grant type IN sensational way, and this
has an injurious effect. because no man
can truthfully deny the influence of the
press. Sentimental considerations affect
Ing classes of the community also tend to
Dervert the impartialty of the law. | be-
iieye that every case in a certain sense in
an abstract way should DO tried on its own
facts and the law as it exists. and that the
great desideratum is TO avoid the intrusion
OF outside in fueuces.
with respect to the question of changing
the rule of unanimity in the yerdicts of
jurors In criminal cases. there is much to
BE- said on both sides. No outrage can be
greater or more completely beyond redress
than the punishment aud degradation Of
an Innocent man. On the other hand the
community needs effective protection
against the criminal classes. If the best
class OF citizens were actually forced to
perform jury duty and not enabled to es-
cape from that obligation under all sorts of
preteXis, verdlcts would De seldom wrong
although The rule OF unanlmity were re-
tanned. My opinion is that the law of this
State, including its judicial system, should
be thoroughly revised through a commits
sion of lawyers from the entire State. who
would suggest necessary amendments To
the constitution and to the statutes. The
change in the rule OF unanimity is too seri-
Gus tn be passed upon in moment. 1t is
easier to handle nine men than twelve and
ii we have juries which can be affected
outside OF the evidence and the law, they
are as liable to be turned 10 one direction
as the other"
81 believe in that principle, for, consid-
ering that all laws are made in the interest
OF defendants, 1t does seem reasonable to
have nine votes as sufficient for conviction
In criminal case" said Arthur Rodgers
L. ID. Riordan, who has had consider
able experience in criminal cases, would
like TO see the reform.
II fully concpr in everything Judge
Wallace said" he remarked, "and would
even go further. l am in favor of abolish
ing the jury SYSTEM altogether; il is a
farce In this country at the present time.
In lieu of juries / would have a court COM
posed OF five or seven Judges, specially
elected or appointed. to try criminal cases.
They could be elected for period of
twelve years, so they would not be sus-
ceDiible of political Influence In cases of
criminals with political pull
IF this could not be carried out, then |
think Judge WalIace's suggestion Is an ex-
cellent one. Allowing one man to sway
jury either wsv is an outrage"
Charles S. Wheeler of CARRIER, Boalt &
Bishop reasoned in a logical manner that
either nine or ten votes should suffice to
convict defendant, but he believed that
the change should be made slowly from old
traditions about jurieS.