New-York tribune., 1903-02-11
JURY REFORM.
Suggested by TsOo Disagrccmeuts
N an English Murder Case.


suffolk L is a murder case which has at
tracted much attention both from the mystery
enveloping the violent death o. a servant girl
during midnight thunderstorm in an English
village. and from the cieverness and ability
with which the defence has been conducted
when there was an apparently complete chain
% circUnlstsntial evidence against the prisoner.
IN the first trial the jury disagreed, one man
standing out for acquittaI against eleven who
voted for conviction. In the second trial there
was another disagreement. ten being in favor OF
acauittai. according one report, and seven. sc-
cordlng 10 another version The prisoner. who
s mechanic Of small means, has been re-
Inandeo 10 jail, where he has been confined for
nearly year, and q public subscription has
been renewed for the expenses Of his defence
and the maintenance Of his wife and children
a third trial for murder is without precedent in
English criminal practice. and controversielists
are urging that it ought not TO take place in
this instance, but that the prisoner should be
released end the double disagreement be ac-
oepted as equivalent TO a Scotch verdict of Not
proven" In any event there ought TO be little
delay either IN bringing on third trial or in
disseminating prosecution, for the prisoners
wife, whose testimony is essential TO the alibi
established by the defence. is infrm and may
not live 10 enter the witness box again, and the
man himself is breaking down under the pres
sure Of mental anxiety and prolonged conhne-
rlent-
The Gardiner case Goes not support the argu-
nent OF legal reforTners against the requirement
q unantnity. a majority verdict in the first
trial would have condemned the prisoner TO
death. and the same principle in the second trial
would hare involved his acqUittal, on the most
favorable statement Of tie voting in the jury
room. Injustice would have been caused by one
or the other of these majority verdicts, which
we're epposed 10 each other. There is no indica-
ton, moreover that either disagreement was
due 70 obstinate prejudice, hopeless ignorance
OF undue partiality, and these are the Prineipal
sources cf dissenson n the jury box and OF the
suspension Of processes of justice The single
dissenting jurymsn Of the first trial was SO
firmly Convinced Of the prisoners innocence that
he has continued TO contribute 10 the support
90 the afflicted wife and family and TO the
funds raised for the defence. The second dis
agreement was plainly an honest difference oL
opinion when the evidence was cennlcllns ana
the conduct Of the prisoner apparently alike IN
consistent with The theory Of guilt or Of iHne-
cence. The reforEner wien he suggests that a
verdict would have been obtained IN either 1rlaI
ff there had been fifteen men IN the box and
twelve Of them had been empowered TO enforce
a majority opinion. begs the question when these
fv,o jsagreernents are considered. It is equally
f,-fle 70 argue IN this case that the requirement
Of l,ranirliry is traditional inheritance from
period when the interests Of the crown and OF
the people were sharply opposed, and conse-
areufIv that il is irrational ann anuaualeo-
While il cannot be asserted that public interests
demanded ecquittal and the interests OF the
croz-n conviction in the Peasenhau murder
case there is justification for the belief max
the operations Of --crowners guest law and
+he detective investigations Of dull village con-
e+arlas required as a safeguard unanimous
verdict
When the murder OF the girl was committed
the man subsequently, arrested and indicted re-
raeined in his cottage near by, made no at
tempt 10 es5ape and betrayed neither excite
rraent nor emotion Suspicion was directed
against him because a letter of assignation
resenhled his handwriting; because the label
of bottle belonging 10 his family was found
where the girl was murdered. and peculiar
t-scts with crcssbars led from his house 70 the
scene ct the crime and back again; and 1or
other reasons more less indirect The Vll-
laze constabies. by a rapid process OF EXCLUSION
assumed his guilt and neglected - follow up
other clews relating TO unknown men who were
alleged 10 have gone across country ana 10
have excited suspicion on the morning after
the murder. The prisoners wife was repeatedly
questioned and compelled 10 give up his cloth
ing ano personal effects; and the constahles
eud local authorities. after prejudging the case
snd announcing that their work was done,
awaited the coming Of the assize, when the En-
1t-e district and county would be strongly IN
aueaced by the evidence in the preliminary
examination. IT is not necessary 20 challenge
The honesty or the Intelligence Of these rural
guardians OF the law. The prisoner was the
only nan against whom their suspicion was
aroused, and they were SO well satisfied with
the presumption CT his guilt that they neglected
70 hunt down the mysterious wayfarers who
-Hz
the thunderstorm and the murder. II is tTnma-
teriaI 70 discuss whether they were right or
wrong II their judgments upon prirna facie
evidence OF guilt II is enough 10 say that pub
Iic interest may require acquittals in cases
where convictions are considered indispensable
by overzealous constables, and that after the
strong presumption OF guilt created by the
preliminary examination the unanimous YER
dict is an important safeguard for innocence
in the final assize
The skilled London detective or the ordinary
rural police constable has reputation to sus-
tain when put in charge Of q murder case he
IS expected to track the criminal down and to
collect SUFFICIENT evidence to involve conviction.
The evidence in the Peasenhau case has Illus
t-ated the facility with which preliminary proc
esses OF criminal investigation operate 10 the
disadvantage of those accused Gardiner and
his wife nIiterate hard working people. were
questioned and cross-exarnined by constables.
when The Importance of their admissions and
ordinations could not be understood by them
selves They were placed at disadvantage in
The earliest stage OF the inquiry; and although
q es spaple and brilliant advocate was finally
engaged 20 undertake the defence the case had
heea prejudged from the outset There was
strong presumption Of guilt when the prisoner