The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-07-27
SUGGESTIONS FOR JURY RE-
FORM.

ing a few days ago about the necessity
for reform in the trial of capital cases,
advanced some good ideas which he has
written out. We print them below and
commend a consideration Of his sugges-
tons:
''There has recently been considerable
comment with reference to alleged mis-
carriages of justice in our courts. 1t Is
urged that defendants with money so
unpublished no matter what may be the
circumstances of the commission OF the
offence with which they are charged
while the fair name of our State is blot
ted by frequent lynchings-lynchings of
| persons not always shown to be guilty OF
| the charge for which their lives are so
| hastily taken. Many well informed law
yers think there is something very radi-
cally wrong or lacking in the machinery
| of our courts. 1t is perhaps the case
that there are more lynchings In the
| United States than in all the civilized
countries of Europe combined. These
unfortunate affairs occur not because our
people are less law abiding than the in
| habitants of the old world but because
| in many instances the people have dis
paired of seeing justice done in the
courts.
The writer believes that two compare
| lively small changes in our law will
remedy the whole trouble in this State.
1. AS you stated in your paper the
other day, the State should be given as
many peremptory challenges as the de-
PENDANT in every case. Why should the
defendant in capital cases have twenty
three challenges and the State only four2
Juries should be composed of impartial
men. They should be prejudiced neither
against the cause of the State nor that
of the defendant. A practice which
gives the defendant this vast advantage
certainly does not tend to secure this
end. In England, under the common
law, there were one hundred and sixty
offences punishable with death. 1t was
necessary that the defendant should
have advantages over the crown in Vari-
Gus respects lest the community be con-
stantly shocked by multitude of execu-
tons. Various ways of escape origi-
mated to break the force of this terrible
law. At one time the defendant was
allowed thirty five peremptory chal-
lenges and the government none at all.
So great we're the number Of capital of
fences and so frequent were executions
that every tendency of the law and the
times was to enlarge the means of es-
cape on the part of the defendant and to
restrict the rights of the government.
It is perhaps true that in our zeal to
xo-no1otyro ba sgrao+ loTafnnoU nf orr q
we have gone to the opposite extreme.
Under the law of this State there are
now only four capital felonies and by
recent statutes two of these offences have
been divided into degrees, the lesser Of
which are not punished with death.
No good reason can now be advanced
why the State shall not be permitted to
challenge as many jurors peremptorily
as the defendant.
2. Under the law Of this State the
State is practically denied the right to
challenge the juror for cause. There are
as many as thirty challenges for cause,
any one of which would probably, in the
discretion of the court, disqualify the
Juror from serving. What is the object
| of these challenges for cause2 They are
the defendant to inquire into the fitness
of the juror rendered. They are
permitted In theory to secure for
the trial of the issue an i'm
partial, intelligent and faith
full jury. But the State must pass on the
Jurors first before they are rendered to
the defendant. 1t has been held in this
State that as soon as the State asks that
| a juror be sworn, that the prosecutor may
inquire whether he be qualified or not,
the defendant through his counsel may
"admit the cause" and the juror stands
aside without examination. The instant
the State sweaTs the juror that instant
before q single question has been asked
the counsel for the defendant if he
does not want the juror says "cause adj
mitted, and the Juror is rejected with
out examination. This absurd practice
defeats the very object for which chat-
lenges for cause are given. The State
can not ascertain whether the juror is
| related to the defendant, whether he has
! formed and expressed the opinion that
| the defendant is innocent, whether he is
opposed to capital punishment, or whether
he has sufficient mind to try the case.
1t may be urged in reply that the State
has the same right with reference to the
juror sworn by the defendant. This also
| is an absurd practice The State should
not have the right to ''admit the cause
suggested by the defendant when he
asks that the juror be sworn; for it cuts
him off from an examination Of the
juror.
|. Either side should be permitted to ex-
amined the juror fully under the direc-
ton of the court, and When the examina-
ton is completed to say whether or not
he Will challenge him.
If these two changes are made in our
law they will perhaps tend to diminish
the number of disgraceful lynchings
which occur in the State, and there will
be few complaints that weak minded
jurors have rendered improper verdicts
while no man will say that the changes
have worked injustice to any one.