The San Francisco call., 1896-03-07
BLOW AT THE
JURY SYSTEM,
Important Decision Rem.
dered by the Supreme
Court.
POWERS OF A JUDGE.
POWERS OF A JUDGE.
He Must Be Convinced Beyond a
Doubt, as Well as the
Jurymen.
MAY SET ASIDE ANY VERDICT.
Theories Which Enlarge the Judicial
Power Until It Becomes Almost
Absolute.


"In the exercise of that power he should
always satisfy himself that the evidence,
as whole, is sufficient to sustain the YER
dict found, and if In his sound judgment
it does not he should unhesitatingly say
so and set the verdict aside"
This comprehensive paragraph is from
an opinion of the Supreme Court rendered
yesterday. The case decided was that OF
the people against Christian Knutte,
charged with obtaining money under false
pretenses, and the major portion OF the
opinion was devoted to defining the
powers Of Judge to set aside the verdict
of jury.
The opinion gives Judge practically
unlimited power over the verdict. He
must be convinced of the guilt of the pris-
oner beyond a reasonable doubt, says the
Supreme Court, just as required of an
ordinary juryman, and then If he be not
convinced he may set aside the jury's ver-
dict, even though the jury be unanimous;
and all because he (the Judge) may not be
convinced.
1t has all along been considered proper
for Judge to set aside the verdict of q
jury when such verdict was entirely at
variance with the law and the facts-when
the verdict is mapifestly one born of SYM
pathy, malice, ignorance or other apparent
cause; but the Supreme Court in its
opinion says nothing about such cases,
only that the Judge himself must be con-
vinced of the prisoners guilt or inno-
cence, or the verdict may-and, indeed, by
the Supreme Courts direction must-De
set aside. There would seem to be but
little use for the jury under the clrcum-
stances, and at once the Judge assumes a
position of power little short of absolute.
The Knutte case was peculiar one. At
the conclusion of the prosecution the de-
fense asked for an instruction to acquit.
and the instruction was given, the reason
being that in the judgment of the court
the case against the prisoner had not been
established. There was no testimony sub
mitted for the defense, and the jury found
the defendant guilty, regardless of the
instructions of the court, and then the
court set aside the verdict and granted the
defendant new trial. From this order
granting a: new trial the people appealed,
and the Supreme Court has affirmed the
order.
The point was made that the action of
the court was an abuse of its discretion.
This discretion, the Supreme Court says,
is not arbitrary but like any other judicial
function, it must DE exercised under the
sanction of the judicial oath, and the
strong presumption i, that it was so exer-
cised. Continuing. the opinion says:
While 1t is the exclusive province of the jury
n he 10 rfb al of no
most important requirements of the trial
Judge to see to it that this function of the jury
is intelligentiy and justly xercised.
The Judge has the witnesses before him
and an equal opportunity with the
jury to observe the manner of the witnesses
the character of their testimony and to Judge
OF their ncredibility and to discover their mo-
tives. He ought TO be satisfied that the evi-
dence as whole was sufficient to sustain the
verdict. II he was not, 1t was not only the
proper exercise of legal discretion, but his
duty, to grant new trial.
Nor does it affect the question that the evil
dence in the case may have legal tendency to
prove all the material facts. Guilt is to be es-
tablished beyond reasonable doubt, and
while there may be some evidence to support
each fact this does not signify that 1t is neces-
sarily such as to satisfy the conscience of the
Judge that a case is made which warrants con-
viction.
There have been several cases in the
courts lately which have brought. the prin-
ciples annunciated in the opinion into
prominence. Some weeks ago Judge Dain-
gerfeld instructed the jury to find for the
plaintiff in certain action aud the jury
did SO, although afterward each one
averred that his vote would have gone the
other way had it not been for the courts
order. This, however, was civil case.
More recently Judge Bahrs has exercised
the same power in two criminal cases. In
the trial of the charge of embezzlement
against Burnett G. Haskell the jury was
instructed to acquit after the case for the
people had closed. The jury rstired and
came back into court and demanded the
testimony for the defense. It was given
and once more the jury was instructed to
acquit. This time, however, the jury dis
agreed and Judge Bahrs discharged the
prisoner. There was no appeal to the
Supreme Court. The case was ended
there.
In the case OF one Godfrey. also before
Judge Bahrs, the jury found the man
guilty, but Judge Bahrs set the verdict
aside and granted Godfrey a new trial.
There was no doubt about the assault, and
the main question was whether or not it
had been provoked. 1t would have done
just well as had Judge Bahrs passed upon
the case a. once instead OF holding twelve
men for two days and then setting aside
their verdict.
Carry to their limits the provisions of
the opinion and there will soon be no use
for jury at all. The opinion suggests
that the discretion it allows be exercised
under sanction of the judicial oath, but
there is no limit set to the judicial oath
and nothing to show how far Judge may