The San Francisco call., 1905-08-22
Tribunal of Appeal Asked
to Bar Professionals"
From All Trial Bodies
SAY LAW Is IGNORED
Members of Bar Contend
Judges Have Too Much
Power in Selecting Panels

1t was only few weeks ago, as pub
lished exclusively in The Call at the time,
that brief was filed by Milton Shepard
son in the District Court of Appeals in
the case of the People Of the State of
California against Edward Richards, the
point raised by the appellant being the
inpahdity of the jury that tried and con-
victed Richards res -ssfy 81
/ The method required by law in secur-
ing venire of trial jurors and the proper
manner to impanel them were set forth
at much length and 1t was alleged that
the statutes had been violated in this case
most f1agrantly. The presence of profess
Sional Jurors in court, and their ways,
were limited at broadly
The brief was argued on August 16 by
ii. V. Morehouse and others and the case
was taken under advisement.
1t is at this period that the extraor-
dinary situation confronts the court
There are some forty-eight members of
the San Francisco Bar Association who
rise to the emergency. 1t is not that they
would care to see an appeal granted on
technicality, but that they hope that the
granting of such an appeal on the
grounds set forth will open the way to
eradicating all that is Objectionable in
the jury system as applied at present in
the Superior Courts.
low life and would never be heard of
again save for the galaxy of legal lights
who have come to the front as suppli-
cants in a document filed yesterday in
the District Court of Appeals Here is
their appeal to the court:
LAWYERS IMPLORE COURT.
"As friends of the court, we subscribe
our names hereto in the hope that the
court, upon that careful considerat ton
questions involved demands, may reach
the conclusion that the contentious of the
appellant must be sustained
The salient points in the document
these gentlemen of the bar have pre-
serted to the District Court of Appeals
are briefly set forth herewith:
For years the jury system, as admin
istered in San Francisco, has been de-
nounced by press and public.
Many miscarriages of justice, both in
civil and criminal cases. have occurred
as result of the manipulation of the
jury system. and litigants have become
excited to a high state of indigna ton
Most of the condemnation has fallen
upon the heads of the professional jur-
or and the officials whose peculiar Jug
Cling of the law makes his existence pos
sible. 4lR5qa
AS result of this almost universal out
of trial by jury has fallen into disrepute
Many people who have been raised from
childhood to believe that the jury affords
the only safeguard against oppression and
tyranny are to-day, at least as far as San
Francisco is concerned, in favor of the
abolishment of the jury altogether. Some
of the best lawyers in California and the
most learned officials, high in the coun-
ellis of the State. have@deelared that the
existing jury system must be thoroughly
remodeled. Others disagree with such
views, holding that the jury system is the
chief guarantee of protection against
despotism. and that whoever strikes a
blow at that sacred institution assais the
very integrity of the nation.
The main complaint is against San
Francisco The palpable reason of this is
that in only two other counties of Cali
fornia is that law handled as it is in this
city. No objection is made to the jury
law in itself, the failures which are Justly
ascribed to its workings being due solely
to the manner in which it is administered
1t is held that the fault lies with the
Judges rather than with the law In all
the counties of the State except three trial
jurors are seleeted by the Supervisors In
the three exec ptions the Judges chose
them Prior to the adoption of the pres
ent otate constitution the district and
other Judges made up the jury lists. Af-
ter the adoption of the constitution in 1879
the section of the code was amended. so
as to conform to the change in the iudi-
cial system. providing that the lists
should be made up by the Judges of the
Superior Court.
JUDGES TOO POWERFUL.
Many members of the bar believe that
it is wrong to permit the Judges to have
anything whatever to do with the selec-
ton Of jurors The aim of the legisla-
tor. they believe, should be to remove
this power as far as possible from the
Judges. What reason, it is asked, "can
there be for having the Judges select iur-
ors for San Francisco and the Supervi-
sors select them for Sacramento Coun-
ty?" They declare it to be a dangerous
power and one which the Judges are
certain to abuse.
The law provides that whenever a Juror
has served once he has fulfilled his dutv
fol that year and must be DISCHARGED. 1t
is contended that no attention is paid tn
that provision In San Francisco, and that
jurors serve in case after case until ,.ey
come to be known as professional iur-
ors" Indeed, there are many men in
San Francisco who are said to have M
other visible means of support than Jury
service.
At the last session of the Legislature
bill introduced by Assemblyman
TreadWell or san francisco provided
that juror who had served on twelve
separate days and had remained sub
ject to service for thirty days should
be freed from further duty for a period
of one year The bill passed both
houses, but failed of me Governors
approval. Here was an effort to over
come the very evils now so much COM
planned of; but, according to the law
yers now engaged in the effort to abate
them, no new law is needed The sys-
tenn, they reiterate, is all right. but its
administration is all wrong. They pro-
pose 10 do all that they honorably can
do to see that Judges apply the iurv
law as they find it. when all the OBJ
jections now urged against the system
will take wings and fly away, when the
professional juror will have to hunt up
a new job and when the confidence Of
the people in the system of trial by iurv
will be fully restored.
Try the United States Laundry. 1004
Market street. Telephone South AGO.
walk at the Chutes on Saturday even