The record-union., 1896-03-17
MISUNDERSTANDING THE SUPREME
COURT.

Intelligence is offended often by the
carelessness and the ignorance mani
tested by some of those who engage to
inform the public mind upon topics in
which the people have living interest.
The other day the Supreme Court
handed down a decision in the case of the
People VS.. Knutte, which a number-we
regret to say a large number-of our
contemporaries have misunderstood,
misrepresented, and on that basis have
criticised caustically, unjustly, and in
a manner to mislead the public and do
the administration of justice harm.
This erroneous criticism has gone to
the extent of bitterness of assault upon
the Supreme Court. 1t has been repre-
sented that the court has undone the
jury system; that it has pronounced a
new rule of law that practically does
away with juries, and constituted the
courts autocrats. AS a sample of this
surprising and objectionable perversion
of the truth we submit an extract from
an editorial appearing in the San Fran
cisco Bulletin" and it is one of the
mildest of the erroneous criticisms re-
ferred to. That paper said on Tuesday
evening last:
The questions of fact have in the be-
nighted past been left to the juryman's
judgment. If the twelve jurors agreed
on a matter of fact the Judge had to
abide by their decision. Ali this has
been changed by few words handed
down by the Supreme Court. These
words not only make the Judge the ex-
ponent of the law, but judge of the
facts. To the twelve jurymen who reach
an agreement as to facts, the Judge
must be added. If he is not convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt, he may set
the verdict aside. 1t will take a fine eye
for small things to perceive the useful
ness of jury under these conditions.
Now as matter of fact, the Supreme
Court has not decided as is above stat
ed. It has not enunciated any new doc
trine. 1t has not misinterpreted the
law. Any man who has attained his
majority ought to know that the power
and duty of the court to review jury
verdict and set it aside has existed CO.
ordinately with the life of the jury sys-
tenn.
The introduction Of the jury into the
system of justice was, as it's history
shows, to furnish the courts with an
advisor. Tt thus became an arm of the
judicial system, and as such it always
hos baay, ord of yaoarc;txr a11roxye ,,,,,e+
be subject to review and correction by
the court. Every man of intelligence
knows that courts always have, when
the need was, set aside verdicts, re-
viewed jury findings and determined
whether they were supported by the
facts as developed at the trial Every
man ought to know that this must al
ways be, If our liberties are to be con-
served, since it operates as a check
upon the jury, and tends to make it
mere cautious, conservative and just,
for jurors know that if they defy the
facts, ignore the law, and fly in the face
of justice, there stands the court with
power to vacate their verdict
But there are cases in which the
jury by the statute law is made an au-
tocrat as to the facts; for instance,
when it has acquitted a person charged
with crime, that verdict cannot be
disturbed, because the law-the sum
of the experiences of men through all
time and the declarations of Legislat-
ures of the people-in its mercy refuses
to permit the accused to be twice placed
in jeopardy.
The statutes of California distinctly
provide that a verdict of acquittal
shall not be reconsidered. The same
statute book, and upon which the law
has been written for California these
forty-five years, expressly provides
seven causes for which the Judge of the
court may set aside a verdict. and the
chief of these is, when the verdict is
contrary to law or evidence" or in
suficiency of the evidence to justify the
verdict"
The statutes, it is true. make the
jurors judges of the facts, and declares
that they are to pass upon the credi-
bility of the witnesses, but these proyis-