Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-12

action Is less than, say $500. and the ac'
tion sololy pecuniary I'm It's character.
| the Court may direct. by It's order 'ha'
| the Jury consist OF seven or nVe'
Again. many persons accused -,
felony plead guilty. and by arrange"iSh'
| ho,,ycor tho commonwealth and the
prisoner che punishment IL agreed upon.
| In this county most OF the felony cases
are disposed OF In this way: why ho'
enact that I'm such cases, tne pIlsonh'
waving fury trial. the Court shal eh'ei
nm udrmcnt on indictment ana plea As
II now stands, n venire must DC sum-
moned. and a petit jury seiec'eu thoIt-
from. only TO record by their Neruic, we
agreement between the prisoner ana the
Commonwealth.
is willing 10 waive trial by Jury, he should
be allowed 20 do so, as In Maryland ana
other States"
our correspondent is confident, he says.
that these bills would save a large
amount.
AS to the first suggestion. st may be
said that by consent and under statute
civil cases are frequently now tried by
"iuries Of less than twelve" Yet, as we
understand IL. under our Constitution"
n fury means twelve men. no more, no
less. The query therefore. obtrudes
itself. whether the Legislature would
have the power 10 authorize trials with
out consent by less than that number.
AS to the second proposition, there is
no doubt that It Is in the power OF the
LEGISLATURE to enact such law as our
correspondent has in view, so far as mis-
-
such an act was passed at the last ses-
sion Of the Legislature. That power was
granted under the amendment to the
Constitution, the adoption of which re-
suited from the first decision, afterwards
reversed, in the celebrated Mary Miller
case. In that amendment occurs this
provision: "But the General Assembly
may; by law. provide for the trial other
wise than by jury of a man accused Of
a criminal offence. not punishable with
death or confinement in the penitentiary."
But it is a question whether the |
could. in the absence of
specific constitutional authority-that Is,
without a constitutional amendment
confer the right to waive trial by jury in
a felony case.
In the case Of Mays VS.. the Common
the Supreme Court Of Appeals |
held the doctrine that 1.-The Legislature, |
however, may authorize waiver Of a |
md where such authority has been con-
erred, defendant who consents to be
ried by the Court cannot afterwards
on the ground that he was not |
ried by jury. But in the absence OF
such authority the Court has no iuris-
fiction to try the accused on n plea of
lot guilty otherwise than by jury, and
consent cannot give jurisdiction"
While this was a misdemeanor case,
ONE lawyers contend that the opinion
mbraces a recognition of the power of
he Legislature TO pass such a law as to
ebony cases as our correspondent con-
emplates. Others, however, argue that
/ has no such scope. and that the very
lords we have quoted from the amend
lent to Article l.. section 10. of the Con-
titution, emphasize the contention that
-aiver of right by jury trial as to felonies
Duld not obtain. except through further
mendment of the organic law. In short.
is not clear that two constitutional
would not be necessary to
airy out the suggestions of our CORE
)ondent
Even, however If the Legislature has
lie power to enact into law the PROPOSE
Ons under discussion the issue of !
aiving trial by jury in felony cases is,
our mind, one that should not be dis :
)sed Of hastily. Aside from the graver
involved, the jury system
less a factor in the expenses of the
than are many other
ings connected with the administration !
justice. ,