New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-02-15
MISTRI4Ls AND THE JURY SYSTEM


We are glad TO find our neighbor THE World"
advocating the adoption Of some form OF the
substitute juror system which The Tribune
has been recommending for many years. If
intelligent public opinion can be generally en-
listed IN support Of this much needed reform
regal specialists may be persuaded 10 under
take the correction of troublesome Imperfec-
ton in the administration Of justice
The danger, now for time at least averted
that the Thaw trial might have to be turned
back 10 its beginning simply because Of the
private calamity that befell one of the iurors
must draw general attention TO the mechanical
flaw in our jury system. We should not LET
the fortunate avoidance of q mistrial in The
present instance distract us from the need of
permanent reform. IT would be preposterous
to suppose that justice is necessarily hest
served through the exercise by a Judge Of his
prerogative Of declaring mistria! on the ground
Oh an incomplete jury. In such cases as the
first trial Of Nan Patterson the state and the
defence lose much money, the jurors much time
and patience and the defendant much peace of
mind. And all this to 10 purpose.
We should never lose sight OF the fact that
dlSpatch Is m intrinsic part Of justice Wait
ing for verdict is III itself a painful nupisL-
ment TO the defendant and an unmeritei ono
too. If he Is finally found innocent Eyerv+I,in,,
then, which operates to retard the processes Of
'io 'oul - "ituouL iuereDy making trials fairer
ought to be stricken out at the first onnor
tmity
III enlightened France the substitute iur, eve
TEN has been used for some wears. lis onar,-
ton is as follows: Twelve regular Jurors and
two substitutes are chosen. the latter sitting
with the former throughout the trial bur vot
Ing only in case of the withdrawal OF reo,,I,r
jurors. BY this simple arrangement the chances
are exceedingly slight that a mistrlal will eyer
have TO be declared on the ground of an pcon,-
plete jury.
Against the French system the objection
Eight perhaps be raised that the substitr+a
jurors, considering that they were PLAYING
MINOR part and relying on the improbabiIitv
OF their sharing in the decision might fail IN
take proper interest in the proceedings and Tins
prove inefficient. But it would be easy ia oyer
come this objection by choosing at the outset
fourteen Jurors. Of whom two would ha eIIn,i
mated by lot after all the evidence had bnan
submitted and each party had rested It's case
AS there then would be only one chance out ~
! seven that any individual Juror would NOT ba ga
TO help decide the verdict all the Jurors vvouId
! naturally keep up their interest 10 the last A
! further provision under the French svstem 10
! that substitute jurors need be drawn only FOR.
! such cases as promise to consume more than a
] Few days. There seems to be no strong oh
| lection 10 suca an arrangement although in
/ theory uniform system would be preferable.
! 1t Is somewhat strange that the American
/ bench and bar have not given this matter more
| serious, or at least more persistent, attention.
/ If there is some subtle twist in the substitute
| juror system tending TO defeat the ends of
| justice, we should Ike to know about it But