The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1910-06-24

jury, advising them to cut out petit
Jogging and remember that most jurors
had read Pickwick and couldn't be
fooled by Buzfuzing The judge re-
marked that he was not referring to
any attorneys specially, but to general
practise throughout the United States,
but he brought the remarks to local
effect by saying that Maui's jury was
an unusually good one and that he was
pleased to have heard attorneys lament
over the fact that the Maui jurors we're
not easily fooled.
After discussing the jury system in
general, the judge said;
"Some attorneys would do well to
change their manner towards and their
treatment of jurymen when examining
them on their voir dire. In this con-
nection please consider that all I say
with regard to attorneys is concerning
the subject generally and as the prac-
tise is throughout the United States
as well as in Hawaii, and that have
no special reference to attorneys of this
jurisdiction or to any attorney of any
outside jurisdiction
"For example, when examining on
their voir dire for the attorney for the
defendant to ask over again the same
questions asked and answered on the
examination by the prosecution is bad
for many reasons; it takes up valuable
time; it seems to doubt what the jury
man has already stated, or to show in
| - -, TIaY,
to examine each juror for long time
after he has shown he is not disquali-
fed by any knowledge or by any preju-
dice or bias, and to examine him in a
way that seems to say to the juryman,
you are trying to deceive me- or
you are too ignorant to understand
the simple terms like "bias," "preju-
dice, !" "duty'' and other such terms, )
is hardly polite or fair treatment for
an intelligent man who is forced into
the place, who is honest and who is
upon his oath. And then, after such
long, tedious and suspicious appearing
examination, wasting much time and
exhausting the patience of court and
jury, and after having shown no respect
for the Feelings or standing of jury.
man in every way the equal of the at
torney and of the judge, to perempto-
rily challenge him in such way as to
show all present that the attorneys OBJ.
ject was not to get able, intelligent,
honest men on the jury, but to endeavor
to get men of different class if pos.
sible, is as poor policy as it is impolite.
!, What can an attorney gain by chal-
} longing those jurymen that he apparent.
ly thinks are the best educated, most
! intelligent and most upright of the men
summonedf Certainly it is no compli-
ment from such attorney to be allowed
to remain in the jury box.
"Some attorneys may also show more
respect for the iuryman by not so plain
ly showing that they think that they
can fool the jury. Attorneys may rea-
sonably infer that our intelligent elect
ors liable to jury duty have read the
case of Bardell VS.. Piclwick and are
on the lookout for nascent Buzfuzes,
, and so may leave out the chops and
tomato sauce and the warmingpan.
, In short, both honesty and wisdom
/, recommend to attorneys the treating of
! our iurymen as intelligent and equal
/ in education on general subjects to
/ themselves.
"Our jury commissioners in Maui
/. have been, and we hope always will be,
so careful in selecting from the great
body of our electors such men for the
Jury list that our juries are an encour-
agement to those endeavoring to place
trial by jury on the high plane it should
occupy, both in actual practise and in
the estimation of the people. And this
remark applies especially to the men
S on the present jury list of this juris
e dietion. We can rejoice in having
r heard attorneys lament over the fact
!. that our jury men are not easily fooled
"Again it seems to me that boil
e Judges and members of the bar toe
7, often act as if our juries were com
& posed of dull, dishonest or foolish mel
, when we often exclude them from the
l. courtroom simply because some Law
e point regarding the admissibility o.
1, evidence is to be discussed and decid
le ed. Does this not, in effect, say to thu
o, Jury that if the matter is not admissi
hle as evidence and not received tina
IA vet they are so weak or dull or dishon
d est as to consider it and receive a
ar evidence what they have overheard
er and be affected by it in rendering thei
n. verdictf This sending out of the jur.
whenever some little question relating
=. to admissibility of evidence is to b
al discussed is a belittling of the jury.
q "Too much importance is given t
~ the charging Of juries. We ask an
m we give too many charges and ofte
4 seem TO treat the matter as If the jur.
a knew but little and would be too niue
y, affected by an erroneous charge or to
y surely lost by not being charged
Again sometimes attorneys who are dc
feated are so affected that they openl
complain Of and condemn the jury
:, charge it with ignorance or with dii
IN honesty. There is no form Of contemr
of court more TO be frowned down upo
than that shown by the complaint
made against a jury by defeated a
CO toTney because he is defeated. II is q
us wicked as IL Is mean. The iufyme
ly are forced 10 act as judges Of the fact
OF and generally unwillinglyi they are Of
les liged 10 Judge and TO be condemned Il
their action on account OF disappoip
ments is very mean contempt Z
qnnrf II IA aiUeraut rennrdiuo fha al