The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-04-30
CHALLENGE OF JURORS.
Right of the risOner to a Large Num-
Der i'm Capital Cases is II
Venerable One.

To the ,Editor.-Judging from arti-
cles published in your paper on The
subject and their tenor one is tempt
ed to believe there is a very general
desire in the State for some Oh anges
In the present jury system. The prom
inent objection is, that in the trial of
capital offenses too many peremptory
challenges, % in number are allowed
the prisoner, and again, majority of
the jury ought to have power to rem
der verdict in all cases. The origin
of all these complaints is that in GER
tain counties of North Carolina juries
occasionally turn loose on the COM
munities men about whose guilt of the
particular crime charged there is lit
tie or no doubt in the popular mind.
OF the existence of this last named
evil there is in some places good cause
to complain and that in these and in
some other counties some men who
get on jurieS are influenced by other
considerations than the evidence in
the case is also true, but Will either
of the reforms proposed remedy the
evil?
The right of q large number of chal-
lenges allowed the prisoner in capt.
tai case is a very venerable one, and
we can reason from that and the fact
that the law making power for so
many generations has left it almost
undisturbed there must be both good
sense and justice to the larger num-
Der in it. The old English common
law allowed the defendant on trial for
his life thirty-five peremptOry chal-
lenges. In the time of King Henry
VIII he was allowed twenty, and by
our statute, sec. 1893, Code, n. G.
consolidating Acts of 1877. 1901.
1926, 1S7D, he is allowed 23 chal-
lenges. The two reasons given are
good ones: "As every one must be SEN
sible, what sudden impressions and
unaccountable prejudices we are apt
to conceive upon the bare looks and
gestures of another; and how neces-
sary it is that a prisoner when put on
trial for his life should have "a good
opinion of his jury, the want of which
might totally discomfort him; the law
wills not that he be tried by man
against whom he has conceived a
| prejudice Because upon challenge for
cause shown, if the reason assigned
| prove insufficient, the bare question
| ing his indifference may sometimes
| provoke resentment; to prevent all
consequences from which, the prison
er is still at liberty if he pleases, per-
| emptorily to set him aside.
/ This is one of the many provis-
! ions full of tenderness and humanity
! for which our law is famous. These
| provisions preserve the spirit and gen.
| JUS of the law, and on the whole, Eek
| perience hath shown work more good
| to the Commonwealth than others
more narrow and severe.
Those who have spent any consid-
| cradle time in the courts or had an
opportunity to observe the personnel
of the juries who render the verdicts
about which we hear so much COM
| plant, can give the cause and they
/ n in II 1n a Eos 10
planned of in most instances at least.
viz: The failure of the commissioners
in many of the counties to perform
the duty imposed on them by law in
the preparation of the jury list If
some means could be devised (and
here a fruitful field for the ingenuity
of the reformers is open), to have
this duty carefully, conscientiously
and intelligently performed by the
commissioners, much of the complaint
we hear would be hushed. The COM
missioners are required ito select the
names of such persons as have paid
their tax for the preceding year and
of good moral character and OF Sufii-
cient intelligence to serve as jurors
and to further inquire whether any
person not qualified to be juror
has his name on the jury lisN ETC., a
large almost unlimited discretion be-
ing given the commissioners in say
ing in the first place what kind or
manner of men shall be allowed to
sit on the juries in their counties. II
the commissioners in every county OF
the State were to give the preparation
of the jury list the painstaklng care
and thought their own duty and the
Importance of the subject required we
would hear but little of jury pack
ing or of verdicts that shock the
moral sense of the community. The
proof of this is ample: In some coun-
ties of the State the commissioners
nave done their duty under the law
and the beneficial result is seen in in
creased confidence and repect for the
VerdlctS of the juries in those coun-
lies. The complaints are loudest, in
TACT, for good cause shown" they
all come from those counties where
neither the spirit or letter of the law
has been followed by the commissions
ers in purging the jury list
T. T. THORNE,
Rocky Mount, n. c., April 10, 1904.