New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-07-15
RIGHTS OF JURYMEN.
One of Them Says That They Are at the
Mercy Of Disputing Lawyers

To the Editor OF The Tribune
Sir: Your very interesting article On juries and
tia fury system IN last Sundays issue finds a.
nearly all such articles do, that the fault lies chief
ly with the Jury venture. the result OF some
experience in the past as jurynan. TO diner from
that opinion and say without hesitation that ne
fault lies IN the license allowed lawyers to waste
the time OF the court and OF the jury IN pickering
over triviaHties and IN long arguments over fool
questions that have bearing on the case. as faT
as the jury can see. and which drive the unhappy
JuryInen to desperation.
Ny experience as juryman in the Supreme
Court leads me to the belief that turymeD as
class are not the ignorant imbeciles many persons
suppose them to be- I know that my associates
have been. almost without exception. sensible.
thinking men. many OF whom could settle the cases
they are called upon to decide with absolute good
common horse sense. and without the tresome
machinery put in motion by cheap lawyers. who
give themselves away IN many Instances and be-
tray the weakness Of their cases and their lack
OF brains by resOrtng to noise and petty squad
bles nothing with the opposing counsel
1t isn't fair deal to make twelve decent, sensi-
bic men sit for hours in Jury box and compel
them to listen to the ignorant drivel or "ambu-
lance lawyers, who flourish in the Interminable
damage suits that make up much Of the business
Of the Supreme Court, and it Is not in the slight
est degree strange that any who has ever SUI
fered the mental tortures OF a jury box should do
his utmost to get out OF jury duty forever after
Jurymen with whom I have sat have cOnversed
with at the beginning OF their term OF service
In tone that indicated their willingness to do
their duty as long they were there. and their
intention to do justice IN the that might come
before them Take these same men three or four
days later after they had served once or twice. and
in nine cases out OF ten they and other sub
3ect OF conversation than bitter condemnation OF
the lighting lawyers who had detained them from
business or other outside duties and forced them
t IL l-s'sH - NUTS u ''SS - -'-''-'
am no lawyer. but I could tell many a little.
scrappy lawyer how he wrecked his case by his
objections TO nothing in particular. He assumed
fooled by him and his noise into the belief he
Tealy had case. while the jurymen were really
laughing at him, and finally became so Xasperated
by his meaningless yels that they wouldn't ind a
verdict in his favor anyway. The lawyers OF this
class have apparently accepted true the hu-
ana many or them treat the jury as III they were a
bunch Of tmbectles and fools. and this IS Just
you expect from twelve tired. angry. tnsulted deaf
eIIe1 men eIitlIIIell comes IN mere as it does
every mere else, and verdcts are often given, in
doubtful cases. where Il Is perfectly evident tai
lying Is going on on both SIDES and Il Is a mere
question VINO has done the better lying to the side
whose lawyer has been most sensible n his treat
ment Of the case and most courteous In his treat
jury room. but any iuryman who has ever served
In damage suits in the Supreme Court knows these
I tell you. the juryman Is II he Is left alone all
right. and viii DO justice IN a case as he sees t.
The entire trouble lies with the cheap lawyers who
nave made a farce OF the whole court system and
the whole situation Is bound to grow worse and
worse II this sort OF lawyer is allowed 70 60 on as
antics and his stupid Interference with the orderly
conduct OF the courts. He II Is who drives mad
making II harder every year to get any sensible
man to waste his time IN fury service For most
OF It Is pure waste Of time Tor men with brains.
New-Yorz. July II. 1905