The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1897-01-29
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Confined from Fourth Page.)

Il
Confined from Fourth Page)
and misdemeanors, a jury of six men
would be amply sufficient to attain the
ends of Justice. The advantages OF a
smaller jury are so obvious that it is
hardly necessary to state them. II
would facilitate the administration of
justice and be great economy in time
and money. A great deal Of valuable
time is often consumed by the courts in
finding twelve competent jurors to
serve, especially in notorious cases, and ,
of course, as the empanneling of the
jury proceeds, the difficulty increases
so that it is often the case that the first
half of jury is selected without much
trouble, while the remaining number
are found with great difficulty. A
small jury, besides being great relief
to the citizens, a great number of whom
are sometimes put to great trouble and
some expense in attending only to be
discharged, would save the time of the
court, speed the cause and very con-
siderably reduce the aggregate of Juror
fees, which, in the last article, we
showed to be one of the large items in
criminal costs. But better still, it
would minimize the evil of mistrials
1t is fact in human nature of such
general observation that it cannot be
disputed, that the larger the body of
men the more danger there is of dis
cord and disagreement and it is won
der that there are not more mistrials
than there are under system which re-
quires the unanimous agreement of
twelve men. Mistrials are great
evil, both in civil and criminal cases.
They delay justice and accumulate
costs, and a case is often worn out and
the criminal let go, unwhipped of jus
tice, on account of some stubborn Juror
who will not agree with his brothers.
A smaller jury would diminish the
chances of this evil, and increase the
probability of verdict on the first
known to those familiar with the prac-
teal administration of the criminal
law, that justice often fails, mistrials
happen and costs accumulate on
account of the cupidity of jurors.
Some jurors have been known to
chang" the jury for the express pur-
pose of increasing their per diem, until
they, having exhausted the patience of
the court, or excited his suspicious,
have been discharged without render
ing a verdict. OF course a jury is not
often discharged under these circum-
stances, but it is often the case that
men will get on the jury for the money
that is in it, and will chang" the jury
so long as they judge it safe to do so.
A smaller jury might not remedy this
altogether, but it would certainly re-
duce the chances of such men getting
on juries.
We have not space in this article for
other reasons that might be added in
favor of jury of less than twelve men.
Suffice it to say that while there are
many good reasons in favor of it, there
are no very good ones against it. There
is only one argument that can be adj
vocated in opposition, ana that is that,
from time immemorial jury has con-
sisted of twelve men; but to any one
who is able to burst the crust of con-
servatism and tradition and look out
upon the enlightened path of progress
and development, this argument will
not appeal with much force. Under the
constitutions of many States the juries
in civil cases are composed of less
number than twelve, and we are advised
in other States the jury has been reduce
in criminal cases. But, however this
may be, Tennessee should not always
be following the reforms of other States,
but should, sometimes at least, take the
lead.
The next article will continue the
subject of constitutional reforms in the
administration of our criminal law.
SAM HOIDING