Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1900-01-10
JUDGE AND JURY.

JUDGE AND JURY.
The very remarkable tongue.lashing
which His Honor o. w. Buchanan
administered to the Spartanburg jury,
which made a mistrial in the Meares
case the other day, will no doubt re-
ceive more or less consideration at the
hands of the people of the state. 1t
ought to.
According to the Spartanburg Her
aid, which made the report of Judge
Buchanan's remarks, reproduced else
where, the jury is understood to have
been eight for conviction and four for
acquittal; but this fact has no leglti-
mate connection with Judge Buchan-
ans remarks, which are only to be
considered as TRADE of abuse against
12 men for failure to agree upon u
verdict. On their face, at first glance,
the remarks of Judge Buchanan ap-
pear to have been generally the
well-directed outburst of a righteous
indignation against men whom he had
reason to believe were wilfully con.
spring to defeat the ends of justice {;
but upon a more careful Investigation,
from the viewpoint that should have
been occupied by his honor, we OBJ
serve what appears to be total mis-
conception of the functions of a judge,
and the unwarranted abuse of little
brief uthority in incompetent hands.
There are strong arguments in favor
of Judge Hudson's proposition to allo"
niue members of jury to render
verdict. One of these is that while it
may not be impossible to find one man
on any jury who is willing to make a
mistrial, it is more difficult to find two
and still more difficult to find three.
But this is not the present law. Each
Juror arrives at an individual opinion,
and the agreement of twelve individu'
al opinions makes the verdict. 1t is
admissible for juror, who is not abso-
lutely satisfied as 10 the facts, TO yield
his lack Of conviction to the conviction
of the majority; but it is not right for
minority juror to surrender well.
grounded conscientious convictions to
the majority opinion merely for the
sake of arriving at verdict. The
minute he would do such thing he
would perjure himself. Therefore, un-
der the present system, mistrials must
necessarily occur, and if they occur
honestly-and this must be assumed in
the absence of almost impossible proof
to the contrary-they are as legitimate
as verdict. This is in accordance
with statute laws.
We shall not undertake to say
whether it is probable that those four
"not guilty" jurors were holding out
because of desire to protect Profes-
sor Meares, for Notwithstanding oaths
or any earthly considerations, such
things are not only possible; but they
are often done. And here truly is the
weakness of not only the jury system
but of all human justice-the weak
ness of humanity. But what right
concrete or abstract-has Judge Bu-
chanan to assume that these jurors
are perjurers? If he actually knew
them to be perjurers, then it would
have been his duty to have said so
and told how and why he knew. In
deed he should have instructed the
solicitor to lay the matter before the
grand jury. Under the circumstances,
although protected by his office from
being held to account for his humiia
ting language, he had no legal or NOR
al right to indulge in its use.
We are not speaking here with un.
due feeling; but are trying to look at
the case in all of its bearings. Then
do not let US lose sight of the fact that
it was not at the minority jurors that
the judges remarks were alone direct
ed. The whole jury was accused of
lack of manhood. Those who wanted
to convict and those who wanted to
acquit were put into the same catego-
ry. According to Judge Buchanan's
peculiar ideas, if the the minority
was not willing to surrender to the
majority, then the majority should have
surrendered to the minority, for aft
er all the issue was not justice, the
character and reputation of plaintiff
or defendant-but merely a verdict.
His statements leave no escape from
this conclusion.
And we are given a plain intimation
that the idea of the verdict was to
save expense. We .re told that the
cost of the trial was $3.50, and the fact
is cited to us that even if the defend
ant had been convicted, he would
have only been placed under a $500
bond. According to the judge, then,
after all, the principal issue was one of
dollars and cents-not that the county
should stand ready to bankrupt itself
in order to insure justice to its citizens !;
but that jurors should only look to the
cheapest way out. In its application
to our judiciary machinery the idea is