New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-06-25
LESSONS or THE FLEMING TRIAL.

Now that the Fleming trial is over. some OF
the features Of il which have eXhlpi'cu "o''
glaringly the defects of our criminal JuilSpi"
dcncc can be- reviewed without the poSsipli''
of doing injustice 10 the defendaht Oh u"""''
awakening sympathy for her. SELDOM il ever,
before i'm Ncw-YOrk has conduct Wi'hh """
without the courtroom tended so Inuch I'd oii"S
the criminal law into contempt as III 'hs caSe'
The evils of the jury system, the sharp prac'i'e
of LAWYERS the absurdity or prevailing ruics
of evidence the morbid curiosity OF Heh anu
women TO hear unsavory and unclcah thlhsS'
and the unbridlcd license with when d'
PENDANT NAV be- handled in print while on trial,
hove bccn made startlingly prominent.
The defenders Of the present methods or ap-
plying the jury system assert that it Is neces-
sarv to find talcsmcn who are so ignorant or SO
far removed from affairs as never to have read
enough about the prcliminaries of case 10
have formed the slightest notion about the quit
ar innocence of the accused person. That Is
length 10 which the rule against Jurors with
prejudice was not originally intended to be car
ricd 4 Juror who considered himself able 10
law aside all Impressions and form conclusion
on the facts presented In court was meant to
III, competent The practice of requiring "A
practically blank state Of mind usually results
I'm a iury of inferior intelligence, and. when il
does not. leads 10 the waste of much time, rs
I'm the Fleming case Yet. having cndcavOrcd
to exclude all persons with any ideas on the
plea that they are SO weak-minded that
thcv cannot distinguish between old inn
prcssions and legal evidence. our lawyers turn
around and place before the jury all sorts
of material. relevant and irrelevant warning
i'm, ,bn, HING tlonVh
a fact of importance in determining guilt or in
noccnce IL not To be considered by them. That
is. Jurors are selected the least able form in
DEPENDENT logical Judgments, and then evil
dcnce is thrown before them with injunctonS
to remember some and disregard the rest. one
Of two things should be done. Either nothing
should be allowed 10 90 before the juror that
may not have weight with him. or jurors able
10 do logical thinking should he procured. the
whole ease should be- laid before them and they
should bc allowed To give each part its due
weight after the whole has been reviewed by
the Judge Nothing could be NOR" farcical
than to bring before men selected on the the
orv that they are too weak minded to have ideas
Of their own witnesses no reveal facts Ia
which the Jurors are told thcy must attach no
weight.
The methods Of examination Of witnesses
also need revising and stern discipline should
ho administered To lawyers who by sharp prnc-
ticc bring ont evidence which they know To
hc Incompetent. in the hope Of affecting the
Jurors improperly. \ most outrageous instance
I'm the Fleming trial was that Of the witness
vino WAS ordered not 10 state II conversation
with the dead woman. but who blurtcl out the
words undc~ the lead Of the examiner. though
both knew that the testimony was incompetent
and It's Introduction had been forbidden only
minute before. or course the words were
stricken ont. but the effect intended had been
accomplished. the jury had heard them. and
no warning could cfracc the impression made
hy them Then the conduct of some lawyers
In discussing the case in print while IL was
on trial and engaging in newspaper controversy
about II WAS a scandal which was httingly re-
bukcd ly the Recorder. II is unfortunat" that
he had no way of rcbukng others outside the
court who followed their example. There Is
certainly grea, need 81 reform In courts. or out
side Of them when respectable women think II
becoming 80 assume publ" character ana
make themselves jurors and critics Of n case
under trial and that too. n sensational one. full
Of testimony most revolving to any pure mind