Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-02-06
FOR STRUCK JURIES.
Provisions of Bill Now Before Both
Houses.

On the 31st of last month, as stated in
The Star at the time, bill was introduced
in each house Of Congress to so amend eX-
listing laws as to provide for struck or
special juries in cases tried in the District
Supreme Court. Since then a number OF
the most prominent members of the Dis
trict bar have circulated a petition IA
vofng the bill, and explaining the many
advantages which, in their opinion, would
result from the passage of the measure.
1t is the purpose of these interested zin
the measure to present the petition to Con-
gress and urge the passage of the bill at
the present session.
The bill provides that in any action at
law either party may demand d struck jury
by filing a praecipe with the clerk of the
court. The clerk shall then, with the mar
shall OF the District, select forty persons
qualified to serve as jurors of intelligence
and sound judgment. This list shall be
preserved by the clerk, who shall give
four days notice to both parties of the
time of striking the jury. furnishing to
time designated in the notice the parties
shall meet the clerk in his office, when
the party demanding the jury shall strike
one name from the list and the opposite
party another, and so on alternately until
each side shall have struck Off twelve
names. Upon the failure or refusal of
either party to attend, the clerk shall strike
eff for him. The remaining names shall
be the list CT jurors struck for the trial
and the marshal shall summon such per-
sons. Upon the trial the names of the
jurors shall be called as they stand upon
the panel, which order must be the same
as in the original list The first twelve of
those who appear and are not challenged
for cause or set aside by the court, shall
be the jury. If the jury be not made up
from such sixteen jurors, the marshal
shall under the direction Of the court. fill
up the panel from bystaNders, or on mo-
ton CT either party. the court shall select
the persons to fill the panel and issue a
special vGnire returnable therefor forth
with. The expenses of the special jury
shall be paid by the party calling for it,
and said expense shall not be allowed to
him as part of the costs in the case unless
the court shall. Immediately after the trial,
certify that the said case was proper to
be tried by special jury. The court in its
discretion may order the payment of costs
in connection with the special jury before
the trial of the cause
In the petition in support of the bill the
s.grers say that the result of the present
jury system is that i'll many instances the
juries are not at all satisfactory. That cases
CT great magnitude. involving large
amounts and important questions, have to
be tried before those jurors whose names
may chance to have been drawn. however
lacking they may be in the desirable quail
iiications for jurors in such eases. 1t is
because of this fact, they say, that law
should be passed similar TO that which
has been passed in many of the states,
allowing struck or special jurieS to be
summoned in cases of special Importance.
1t is pointed out that among such states
are New York. Ohio, Michigan, Alabama,
Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey,
Louisiana and Delaware.
The bill in question, the petitioners state,
is modelled upon the Ohio law, being al
most identical with it. But in order 10
prevent the useless call for such jury, a
provision similar TO that in the Delaware
law has been inserted. which requires the
party calling for such jury to pay the
costs occasioned by it, such cost rot to be
allowed as a part of his tax costs, unless
the court shall certify upon the record
that the cause was proper to be tried by
special Jury.