New-York tribune., 1907-07-30
JUSTICE DAVIS on ENGLISH TRIALS.

Justice Vernon NJ Davis Of the New York
| Supreme Court IS impressed with the swiftness
of English justice in dealing with criminals.
! Sitting on the bench beside Justice Darling IN
| London, he saw two criminals, In a case that
/ would have been sensational IN this country,
| tried and convicted in six hours. The jury was
| selected In a few minutes. In New York 1t
would have taken at least two weeks to obtain
! the jury, and the trial would have lasted prob
| ably six more This difference between English
and American criminal trials IS a commonplace.
! Justice Davis thinks it is due TO the extent to
/ which veniremen read the papers, and so
! make up their minds IN advance, and TO the
| abuse of the appeal system here, which leads
| counsel to waste the courts time contriving OBJ
| jections and laying the basis for appeals
! These are important differences, but there is
! another perhaps, still more mportant-namely,
! that which springs from the relative position OF
| Judge and jury in this country and In England
| The English criminal judge controls the jury as
our judges do not, and 1t takes tho law from
him implicitly. AS he occupies a position Of
greater authority and dignity than here, the jury
! there is subordinated 10 an extent unknown
even inconceivable, in this country. There is no
! jury made law In England. Juries have no such
notion OF their functions American jurIes
| have.
| This difference is shown IN the selection OF
! juries there and here. In England 1t is as
| sumed that a juryman will do his duty, take
! his law from the judge and decide upon the
facts according to his own conscience, Here
I the contrary IS assumed. The freeborn Amer
! lean citizen Is supposed 10 have extra legal no
! tiOnS Of his own TO put into effect In the jury
| box. He is expected to give vent to his indivd-
! uality. IF he has a personal belief against
! capital punishment he is expected to go into
the jury box and enforce the law as he thinks It
| ought to be, not as It is Every American
yenircman IS asked in capital cases # he has
any objection to capital punishment. We doubt
! If the question is ever heard in English courts
| The English juryman IS expected TO subordinate
his personal beliefs and crotchets TO the declared
| policy OF the state. We have to conduct a
| learned iaqulsition 10 find out what idosyn-
| crasies are getting into the jury box. The Eng
! lish do not. They have no unwritten law. We
! have, because we treat jurymen If they were
! the ultimate source Of all wisdom, and our Sys-
! ten permits them to go into the jury box with
! the notion that they are bound by nothing but
/ their own crude and sentimental conceptions Of
| justice.
This state represents, compared with Eng
| land, only half the American tendency to exalt
| the juryman and abase the judge. In n number
| Of the states the jurymen are judges OF the law
as we'll as Of the facts and the judge IS q dig
nifed nullty. This democratic notion that
! justice cannot be obtained by enforcement
Of the laws they stand, unmodifed by the
jury's feelings and capacity to interpret public
sentiment results in the introduction Of gush
and sentimentality In American trials unknown
in England. Prodlgious efforts are made here
to play upon the Jurys emotions. Our trials
tend to effect, as one English observer said OF
| a recent famous case "the amateur Justice of
the mob" 1t is this fundamental difference
that protracts our great trials far beyond tho
duration of English cases this elevation OF the
jury at the expense of the judge, this populariz-
ing Of the trial system. We might improve our
trials by giving the trial judge greater authority
and independence but we cannot have the ce-
lerty Of English trials, their subordination of
sentlmentality to logic, without changing the
temper OF our people,