Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1910-07-08
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
1t Needs Remodelinf-In Some Cases Is
Mockery on Justice.

iIC ubo OCCu pdi tiCuldElN dCtiNc III
pointing out the defects in our Grim
i inal law; using fOrcible language in
demonstrating that crime goes un-
punished too frequently through re-
sorts to quibbles on the part of a
certain class of lawyers. though he
has not used the appropriate term in
express language, he evidently re-
ferred to ''shysters' and attorneys
having a close relation to this nnde-
sirable class OF vampires who make
judicial proceedings mockery and
cause the public to lose confidence in
our courts and the fundamental prin-
ciples underlying our Jurisprudence.
Mr.. Taft believes the Judges
should have more power to comment
on the facts and the law OF the case
under consideration. An individual
goes into court room, is told that a
criminal case is on trial. From the
tactics pursued by the defendants s
lawyer, the quibbles raised, the OBJ
server oftentimes feels the lawyer is
conscious of his clients guilt and
puts the Judge on trial by trying to
catch him mapping and make rec
ord on which he may predicate error,
and thereby cause a reversal in the
event of an adverse judgment.
l have several times heretofore in
the columns of the STANDARD, and /
think the proposition will bear repe-
tition, argued that our jury system
needs remodeling badly. The State
has a very slim show compared with
the position of the culprit at the bar
of Justice. Precedents are invoked
which arose in the early history of
English Jurisprudence in the defend
ants behalf, when the prisoner was
not allowed counsel or permitted to
testify. Many of these precedents
have been during recent years super
seeded in the parent country. There
is no good reason for requiring a
unanimous verdict in criminal cases
to convict the accused charged with
the commission of the offense. The
appellate courts through a majority
of their members determine the law
controlling criminal and civil cases,
and why should not this practice be
observed in all cases civil and crimi-
nal. The men who serve on juries
are generally honest and mean to do
right. but coming from the body of
the people, get switched from the
main points involved in the contro-
versy. then follows q miscarriage Of
justice, the public has been swindled
and inculpated in large bill of ex-
pense and the example set before
would-be criminals and moral degen-
crates is most pernicious. To allow a
bare majority of the members of q
jury to render a verdict in criminal
case when we have long been accus-
toned to the unanimous feature in
that behalf, might seem at the COM
mencement of such an innovation in
this respect too radical to the conser-
vative mind to appreciate. A be-
ginning might be made by providing
that three-fourths of the members of
the trial jury shall determine the
proper verdict. This method would
throw sufficient protection around an
innocent man charged with crime.
| while there would be less chance for
the guilty culprit to escape through
the bias. prejudice or crookedness Of
single juror. Picking out twelve
individuals to serve on jury trial,
especially in small communities, the
prisoner may through his attorney or
his own personality improperly indu-
ence a juror in his favor through
sympathy or otherwise, which might
not be characterized as out and out
! bribery. Men are more often
bribed and their Judgment perverted
through their feelings than by re-
ceiving direct money consideration.
The influence and power of such in
dividuals in the administration of
justice, and the temptation to bribe
ought to be curtailed. A criminal in
a tight place might be able to reach a
single juror and run Jess risk of ex-
posure than by attempting four men,
bers of the trial jury. The practice
in vogue is an impeachment of the
capability of the majority, and con-
trary to the principle of majority
rule which lies at the foundation of
American institutions.
A prominent lawyer residing at
st. Louis, Mo-, writing on this SUBJ
ject, among other comments sug-
gests that even in murder cases the
present practice ought to be changed;
that after the jury in the box shall
have deliberated twenty-four hours
and failing to agree on verdict, the
presiding judge might in the exer-
else of his discretion instruct the
jury that three.fourths of its men,
bors may render the verdict.
This change in the method of try
ing persons accused of crime might
affect the amount of fees realized by
q class of lawyers who profit by rea-
son of the defects and technicalities