The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-05-05
A Failure Of Jus,ice.

The disagreement and discharge Of the
jury in the case OF the PATTERSON woman
will probably end the efforts of the Dis
trict Attorney to convict her Of crimi-
nal responsibility for the death Of her
paramour. In her two trials the juries
were unable TO come to any decision as
TO her guilt or innocence, in spite Of the
very great expense Of the county in OBJ
tanning the evidence presented at them.
Such disagreement, however, was in
evitable. In the first place, she is young
woman, and only when the evidence OF
murder against a young woman is incon-
testable is her conviction by a jury at
all probable The evidence against the
PATTERSON woman was wholly circum-
stantial Nothing more than a hypoth-
esis Of guilt was established by the
State. Undoubtedly it was q strong
hypothesis, but, after all, il was meta
physical rather than based on proved
facts pointing 10 guilt beyond any rea-
sonable doubt, though it justified the
presumption Of guilt which caused the
disagreement Of the jury.
II II DCluGI lOI lllg CAUSE VI law anu
Justice that jurymen should refuse 70
come 20 an agreement on a verdict rather
than that any Of them should yield his
conscientious and reasonable doubt in
order 90 secure unAnimity. Even in a
case where only rights OF property are
concerned, or in any purely civil case,
a jury which reaches q verdict through
the compromise Of the convictions Of
any part Of it violates its oath and brings
the jury system into disrepute. When
! the life or liberty OF person accused is
at stake any such compromise goes 70
the extreme Of morally criminal respon-
sibility.
It was inevitable. therefore, TO every
one who followed the evidence in the
case Of the PATTERSON woman, both at
the first and at the second trials, that
there would be a conscientious disagree
ment by the juries. The inference Of
the guilt OF the woman was doubtless
strong, but no chain Of evidence was
constructed by the prosecution which
established that guilt beyond perad-
venture. The disagreement in the jury
room represented the disagreement Of
the outside public who had studied the
evidence most carefully and intelh-
gently. II the question OF this woman's
guilt had been referred TO that public, II
would have been left decided the same
as it was by the jury before whom she
was tried. In at least minority Of both
| there was the reasonable doubt as 10 the
sufhcienoy Of the evidence to establish
guilt Of which the law gives the accused
the benefit, even where a moral con-
viction that the woman killed the man
was ineffaceable.
A question arises as 10 the wisdom Of
the methods Of prosecuting officer in
such a case as this, and it involves philo-
sophical and psychological considera-
tons. The habit Of the District Attorney
or the assistant 10 whom he delegates
the prosecution Of a case Of prime public
interest like that Of the PATTERSON
woman is TO pursue il with an ardor and
a zeal intensified by pride Of opinion and
the ambition 90 win professional vic
tory, with tho consequent gain in repu-
tation. This is far from an unmitigated
evil, il, indeed, It is actually an evil. II
the prosecuting officer should be luke
warm in his efforts for conviction, or
should exhibit TO jury any Indifference
d 10 Il, the interests Of justice would
suffer fatally. But II IL Questionable
II he does not help to bring about the