The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1898-02-10
OUR JURY SYSTEM


value of our jury system. Some hold
that it should be entirely done away
with as nuisance and an aid in de-
feating the ends of justice, while others
believe in its utility in securing JUS
tice, both in civil and criminal cases.
Possibly, if the question is looked
into deep enough with a view to ascer-
tain the facts which obscure it's value
as factor in the administration of
justice. it may be found that the sys-
TEN of itself is entirely free from crit
icism; that the Odium into which it
has fallen in the minds of so many is
due to the senseless laws which govern
the selection of jury, especially in
murder cases, where man who has
read the papers reciting some of the
incidents of murder. or who has
been told something about it and has
formed an opinion, is incapacitated to
sit in the jury box and listen to the ev-
idence because the opinion which he
had formed in the first place would al
ways be his opinion without any ref
erence to the quantity or the quality
of additional evidence which might be
produced in the trial court. The re-
suit of this is the selection in many
cases, of jury composed of twelve
men who, intellectually, are of low de-
gree because intelligent men read the
papers and no person can read of the
acts in tragedy or hear them related
by another without the formation of a
bias in his mind and such bias or Opin-
ion will simply rest on what has been
read or heard of the case, whether
much or little. Then the formation of
an opinion ought not to bar man of
intelligence from the jury box because
hearing additional evidence will change
the first verdict formed in his mind
and set up a new, and it may be an en-
tirely different one. This is always
the case whether man is willing to
acknowledge it or not as it is difficult
matter for anyOne-in his waking
state-to entirely suspend the opera
tiOns of his mind
If man is to be tried for murder or
some other capital crime under the
law. he is entitled to jury composed
of his peers; but If he is man of ed
ucatiOn and also possessed of other ac-
cOmplishments, under our prevailing
system of selecting jury he is denied
that right by another law which ex
cludes the very men who could be
counted his equals. So that if he be-
better in the hands of set of men. in
every way his equal, yet he would be
denied that right, because the states
attorney, prosecuting the case, espe-
cially if new in the office would natu-
rally feel ambitious to gain the reputa
tion of successful prosecuting officer.
There have been innocent men of
high attainments charged with capital
crimes and tried before juries, such as
the law allowed, and of course, un-
justly convicted Nor is it difficult.
seemingly, to understand why such in
justice has been and may be meted
out again.
All witnesses do not tell the truth
when in the witness box; and many
witnesses that do tell the truth and
nothing bat the truth are made to ap-
pear as untruthful by the abuse of
some skillful lawyer on cross examina-
tion. But where the jury is composed
of intelligent, sharp, discerning men
they can distinguish between truth
and falsehood-can separate truth
from a mass of evidence which legal
jury under our present laws would be