Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-07-19


print a communication on the subject
OF Judges and juries. 1t Is from the pen
OF a distinguished member OF the bar; an
able and good man. In II ne includes
extracts from a valuable address made
by Mr., now Judge. J. w. Rely. at the
meeting OF the State Bar Association,
at Old Point, in 1892.
In the main we agree with what our
correspondent says: but We must dissent
from his views when he declares that
Everybody knows that II is the uncer-
tainty Of the jury's doing It's duty that
provokes people to go into the courts OF
| lynch-law"
Never was there a greater mistake
The public fear is not more
that the jurles will fail to do their duty
than that through delays. continuances,
technicalities. appeals, reversals, and new
trials, the prisoner whom the jury has
found guilty will at last escape punish
ment. This was the identical case in the
Amelia county lynching. The jury had
done its duty well; but, the judges had
not done their work so well. and the
people, being fearful that upon the new
trial granted the prisoner would escape
justice proceeded TO lynch him. Ana
| upon a statement OF facts made to the
public on behalf of the lynchers, public
opinion justified this unofficial admlnistra-
ton Of justice.
Juries make many mistakes: but so do
| Judges. They are all falllble men, and
| for our part we shall not undertake TO
apportion the blame. But this We must
say. that some Of the verdlcts most COM
planned Of In Virginia during the last
year or two, were given by as good men
az there are in the Commonwealth; men
whose intelligence il above the average
and whose character is altogether above
reproacb. In each Of these cases the
Jurors doubtless thought that they were
obeying the judges instructions. though
we daresay that they were mistaken.
The probability is that they did not I'M
derstand the instructions; that Is. that
the instructions were unsuited to the I'M
derstanding of laymen.
In homicide case which attracted
general attention In this State there can
be no doubt that the prisoner would
have been convicted and given four
or five years term in the penitentiary
at the first trial. but the trial Judge made
erroneous rulings and the prisoner was
I'm consequence given long term In the
penitentiary. but upon appeal this con-
yiction was set aside. At the new trial
conditions had changed, and there was
verdict Of mot guilty" For this mis-
carriage of justice the jury were savagely
denounced-though they insisted that they
had but done their duty, as they under
stood the law-while scarcely a word of
criticism was uttered against the first
trial judge.
So, we think that the responsibility for
the popular dstrust of courts is not more
chargeabls to the juries than to the
judges. But the whole responsibility
should not be put upon jures and judges.
Our laws and lawmakers should bear
large share of blame.
Our laws make conviction too difficult
and escape too easy. Think Of an ac-
cused being tried in county court
and having the right TO appeal thence
TO the circuit court, and thence to the
Supreme Court of Appeals. with chance
Of new trial and a change Of venue
to another county and another circuit!
We don't understand that our cores
pondent holds the judges Of our courts
altogether innocent Of error or blame.
Oh, no; but he seems to put the larger
ehare of blame for the distrust of courts
upon the juries. And right there we beg
TO differ with him-at least until II Is
established that where there have been
signal failures Of justice in this State
the judges have not been equally to
blame with the juries.