The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1894-07-12
PETIT JURIES.
Trials by Jury Under our Present Sys-
tenn of Jurisprudence are but Mock

L
tenn of Jurisprudence are but a Mock
cry.
There is perhaps no question today
which receives so little attention as the
make up or character of our juries.
There is no question so vital to human
life, or liberty, or the proper enforce
ment of the law. Availability seems
to be the only qualification.
A man placed on trial for the commits
sion or alleged commission of some
crime, is entitled by law to trial before
twelve of his peers. How often does a
man go before twelve of his peers?
Who are his peers? Is 1t any Tom.
Dick or Jack whom court official can
pick up on the street corner? Well,
such is the average juror at any rate.
None but men of good moral character,
of sound judgement and intelligence
should be permitted to decide the issues
of any case at law. Court officials
whose duty it is to empanel jurors will
say, that they have nothing to do with
their selection; certain number of
names from the poll list are placed in a
box and the required number to COM,
plete panel are drawn out by someone
supposed to be blindfolded and their
duty is to subpoena them. We will ad-
nit this to be true, but is not the sys-
tenn wrong? How easy it is to
place names in that box who are avail
able. who are for the prosecution every
time. There is not Doodle sufficient in
the defense so that they may be remem-
bered in the next panel. How often
you hear men say, 81 am idle now, am
going to get on the jury and make
few dollars He gets there. How?
Ask the man who manipulates the box.
l know this to be a fact; that men get
on iuries who have friends behind the
power at the box, and they are men
without character without brains suf
ficient to distinguish between bank
draft and chattel mortgage; men who
have no other occupation; who would
hang a jury four months if there was
three meals day in it, or perhaps a
friend, or a few dollars in the case.
Not many months ago listened to the
examination of jury; this question
was asked of one of them. Unless the
state prove the prisoner guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt, would you convict
His reply was, 81 would not convict
unless he was guilty" The lawyer
said, "that is strange and accepted him.
That man had no conception as to
what constituted reasonable doubt,
[ watched him during the entire trial,
, he Was asleep, or nearly so, great part
of the time. Once during the progress
of the trial the judge had occasion to
discharge panel who were sitting in
the court room waiting to be called
on some other case and this juror
> sprang up and grasped his coat and hat
a thinking he was alluded to. You car
fancy how much he knew Of that case
3 Of course the prisoner was convicted
3 whether he deserved conviction or not
is not the question. Was this fl
! character for juror? The nature o.
r the case was not one that would make
! man drowsy; he was on that jury tt
convict; not because the law and evi
, dence proved the guilt, but because th'
4 states attorney said he was guilty, an(
{ because the prisoner would not hav'
> been arrested if he were not guilty
t The judge charged them that if Their
n were any doubts as to the prisoner
! guilt they should give him the benefi
;. thereof; he might just as we'll have rea'
Q one of Bill Nye's witticisms; it woul'
r have had as much weight, notwithstand
|, ing that the judge admitted that ther
: were serious doubts in the case.
d man of this description violates hi
g oath when he swears to lay aside al
a feeling and abide by the law and test
:, mony. A man who violates his oat
l. is not fit to be juror; he is fit for moth
:. ing; he is no mans peer. The author
u of that law, which says, 1--WE shall b