The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-03-23
JURY AND VERDICT.

It has long been a pretty generally accepted theory that no finite under standing can anticipate the findings Of petit jury. Doubtless much of the criticism visited on them is undeserved. If jury should be required to decide cases strictly on their merits and on the evidence, without the assistance or hindrance of attorneys, we suspect that there would be many more reasonable and just verdicts than there are Twelve men taken from the ordinary walks of life can hardly be expected to be familiar with all the bearings and intricacies of our multifarious laws, for the best of lawyers them- selves are sometimes as badly puzzled as the laymen are.
 Then, when a witness gets on the stand the lawyers on one or the other side, and sometimes on both, feel 1t their duty to so confuse him that his testimony will be worthless, or may even have an effect the opposite of what was intended. And when the testimony Is all in we know that the attorneys on both sides will put forth all their powers and efforts to make the worse appear the better reason" as Milton says. We are not charging that the lawyers are not justihable in using every effort to gain their side of a case, but are aliuding to some of the reasons why a jury composed of men of ordinary capacity and opportunities should not always be blamed for not ance with the law or with justice.
 Yet there are cases where no process of reasoning can reconcile a verdict with anything but unmitigated stu pidIty, or a total disregard of law. evil dence and justice. Recently In one of our exchanges we read Of case in a St. Louis court which is very much to the point. It was the case of woman charged with robbing a man in that city. The evidence was positive be- yond shadow of doubt. yet the jury re- turned a verdict of not guilty, and the reason for 1t was apparent, however discreditable. The woman was young. handsome and elegantly dressed, and during the progress of the trial she kept up a kind of noiseless Irritation with the jurymen and so worked on them that they refused to convict her. So outraged was the judge that he delivered the following blistering re- buke:
 It is a pity that a sickening firta- ton between jurors and the defendant In a criminal case has the power in this court to defeat the ends of justice. I discharge you and hope none of you will ever again sit on case in this court.
 That was a warm dismissal. but the District Attorney was more thoroughly disgusted than the Judge was, and he let his feelings out this way:
 Gentlemen, thank you for your verdict in the name of all that is law less and shameless. I thank you for displayed in being influenced in your verdict by a pretty woman's winks and a glimpse at bit of openwork stock ing. You are a credit to your class.
 We take 1t for granted that both judge and prosecutor were men who could not be turned aside by a sick ening firtation," and that winks and openwork stocking were not powerful enough to turn them from the dis charge of a solemn duty. It Is also likely that the District Attorney lost fee by his failure to convict, and that may have had something to do with his disgusted surprise at the re- suit of his efforts. But what must have been the feelings of those jury men! If they were really men of hon. est intentions their feelings when lis- tening to the oficial rebukes must have been the reverse of pleasant. and their after cogitations on the subject could hardly be calculated to add to their satisfaction. And if any of them were married we may imagine that they had some uncomfortable moments when their wives got hold of them and the story. That was probably the worst feature of the business.