Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-08-13
QUICK TRIALS IN ENGLAND
COURTS ADMINISTER THE LAW
SWIFTLY AND CERTAINLY.
Comparison Between British and
American Methods Of Judicial
Procedude.

fCOCeQu0e.
Francis NJ. Bprdick. in the North American Re
The lame and hating gait of American
justice has become a matter Of frequent
comment and regret even by the learned
persons whose business it is to dispense
it, Quite recently supreme court judge
Of New York. on his return from Eng
land. was reported by the daily press to
have said that "Englands justice is much
swifter than ours" Referring to a MUIR
der trial. which he attended in London.
and which lasted but day, he declared
that lin this country 1t would have lasted
a week." Similar opinions have been ex
pressed by other judges. as well as by
practicing lawyers who have watched the
trial. Of cases in English courts. But
few months since q committee of the
Alabama State Bar Association sent out
a circular containing some very sug-
gestive statistics. from which 1t appears
that there are twelve times as many
homicides in New England annually as
in California. and 245 times as many In
Nevada. Commenting on these sta
tietics. the committee said: 1T is be-
lieved that the certainty and swiftness
them in the United States account, in a
large measure. for the wide difference in
the number Of crimes in the two coun-
tries 81
That very marked difference in the
sw1ftness and certainty of justice between
England and the United States does exist
admits Of no doubt. 1t was emphasized
perhaps unduly exaggerated for most per-
sons-by the Thaw and Rayner murder
trials. In each case the evidence Of the
kf11in0 nndfSnntad
and the only legal defense was that Of
the prisoners insanity at the time Of the
homicide.
The Rayner trial occupied but single
first trial of Thaw dragged its weary
length through more than seven weeks to
the impotent conclusion OF the jury's dis
agreement.
In commenting on these trials the Lon
don Law Journal of March 80. 1907. said:
English judges and juries do not listen
with patience to arguments about degen-
eracy or brainstorm as excuses for not
bringing home responsibility for taking
the lives of others. :" To an Eng
fish lawyer the Thaw trial reads like a
travesty or abuse Of the common law
procedure a mock trial prepared
for the entertainment of the curious in
mental abnormities. rather than a judi
cial investigation into a question of fact
Comparison OF the two systems indicates
that the English system. with Its modern
improvements, coupled with the effective
control of the presiding judge. affords the
better means of vindicating public justice
In a manner becoming the dignity of the
offended law
Lawyers Too Prominent.
OF the first Thaw trial a Scotch lawyer
wrote to friend in this country:
1T is a great case. but not nearly so
great as your American methods of pro-
counsel 1t is really Jerome's and Del
mas acts that are on trial. with Thaw's
future as a kind Of by-product of the ex-
bersome device for wasting decent mems
time anu swelling lawyers heads
1t was intimated moment ago that
these cases may exaggerate the differ
ence which really exists between the two
countries in respect of the swiftness of
justice. Undoubtedly, had Rayner been
rich and able to employ numerous and
distinguished counsel. they might have
prolonged his trial little even in Eng
land. On the other hand. If Thaw had
been poor. and especially if the killing
had been of his putative father. because
he refused to support him. instead of
Stanford White for the reasons assigned
by his counsel. his trial would have been
greatly abridged even in New York city.
But If the records of these cases are not
entirely fair specimens of the difference
in swiftneSs, they do we'll illustrate the
difference in certainty. Rayner could
not appeal from his conviction. Had
Thaw been convicted he, could have ap-
pealed to the appellate division Of the
supreme court; from an afhrmance of the
conviction in that tribunal to the court of
appeals: and. II the ingenuity .of counsel
could discover any federal question In
the proceeding the final determination
might have been still further delayed by
carrying the matter to the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Moreover. upon an appeal the conviction
might have been set aside and a new
trial ordered for some trif1ing error on the
part of the trial court in admitting or
excluding evidence or I'm giving or re-
fusing certain instructions to the Jury or
in constituting the pleadings. or In applying
rule of practice. This might be done for
are continually awarded in this country
for such errors. The theory which gen
orally prevails in our courts is that one
who appeals from the verdict of jury
whether in a criminal or a civil case is
not bound to show that An error of the
trial court was actually harmful to him.
1t Is for the other party to show that 1t
was harmless: that 1t did not and could
not have affected the verdict AS result.
new trials are granted in this country
with extravagant frequency. 1t is said
that upward Of 500 a year are recorded in
our judicial reports. as against not more
declares that during the decade Of 1890
new trials were granted in less than 31S
per cent, while In this country new trials
were granted In IS per cent. An eminent