Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-06-10
aalistellanrou5 &eading.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.
important Problems Ably Discussed
BY Judge Memmineer.

/
Columbia State, Wednesday.
Judge Memminger's address last
night to the members of the univer-
sity's senior law class on the System
of Trial by Jury" came from a prac-
| tical worker in the field of the admin
istration of law i'm South Carolina who
has had ample opportunity to see the
system in use and who knows its faults
and deficiencies.
Beginning his address last night
Judge Memminger said:
| Roughly stated, the system of trial
by jury has been in operation from it's
| appearance in England in substan-
| TALLY its present form, for nearly 600
years.
| "Originally jurors were witnesses to
| who would swear as witnesses to their
belief in the guilt or innocence of the
accused; and there was no such thing
as a grand jury; but gradually it
seems, owing apparently to the natural
unwilingness of persons to come for
| warn anu Ildhe dcCuSdllDllS VI tIlllc,
or perhaps to the desire Of the people
| that no person be brought to trial at
the instance of the government, with
out the Intervention of the grand jury
as representatives of the people; it
was found expedient to have a body of
sworn accusers, and the grand jury,
as such, became fixed in the English
law (although it's precise date and ORR
gin is difficult to discovery; and the
petit, or trial. jury became, as they are
now, not witnesses but men drawn at
large from the neighborhood, who hear
the testimony of witnesses and decide
the issues of fact.
Features of Jury Trial.
"The most unique and characteristic
features Of the system of trial by jury
may we'll be said to be: The number
/ IL, necessary to constitute a jury; the
rule of unanimity, whereunder the ver-
dict must be by all the IL, instead of
majority or other numerical proper
tions; the exemptions from jury SER
vice; and the right of peremptory chal-
lenge.
| "As to why 12 was the number Sc
lected, no sound theory has ever been
evolved. One learned author states
! that this number was not confined to
England nor in England nor elsewhere,
to judicial institutions. Another at
| tributes it to II. being the favoritc
number among the Scandinavian ma
tions for constituting a court. Anoth- |
er that it was in analogy to the fact
that the prophets We're 12 to foretell
the truth; the apostles, II to preach
the truth; the discovers, II sent to Ca
| naan to seek and report the truth; and
the stones, 12 that the heavenly Jeru-
salem is built upon.
Rule of Unanimity.
THE next curious and unique fea-
ture Of the system of trial by jury, and
the one of all others which perhaps has
excited more discussion and adverse
criticism than any other, is the rule Of
unanimity. 1t has been condemned
universally by many high authorities;
and apparently the weight of opinion
| is that it should not prevail, except in
criminal cases, exclusively.
I'm our own state, one Of our judges, |
| (the late lamented Judge Hudson), in
an able charge to grand jury, declar- |
| ed strongly against this rule and for |
a majority of two-thirds verdict. |
Among many other cogent reasons in |
support Of his opinion, he urged that
| the rule of unanimity renders consul |
tation in the jury room so tedious, pro-
| tracted, onerous and disagreeable, that |
good and true, intelligent and compe-
tent men are averse to the service and |
| resort often to subterfuge to avoid the |
duty and escape it's hardships. On
grand juries they serve willingly, but
on petit juries with reluctance
ION the other hand, the reasons |
which support the rule Of unanimity |
are not without great force; and, as
was well said by a student of the sub |
| ject (who, after a careful study, himself
favored the rule): 1T often happens
| that it is the one competent, thought |
full, conscientious juror who, by his |
dissent compels a full and fair consd- |
Grafton of the evidence, and thus be- |
comes a safeguard against precipitan- |
cy and passion in the rendering Of
verdicts The fact alone that unani- |
nifty must be reached before a verdict
can be rendered, tends strongly, be-
yond a doubt. to produce fair deliber-
alton and due discussion in reaching |
the verdict"
Judge Memmnger declared that the
statutory exemptions from jury duty
| were both Inconsistent with the rea-
son of the system and wrong in actual
| operation"
Jury Exemptions.
Continuing, he said:
THE very basis, or rationale, OF
the system is to have questions Of fact
determined by men drawn at large
and indiscriminately from the commu-
nifty, and from all kinds and callings
of men. These statutory exemptions
relieve men engaged in certain occu-
pations entirely from jury service, IN
most cases arbitrarily and without
reason. 1t was public necessity only |
which was the origin for exemptions;
as, for instance, millers, men who in
old times ground grain for the public; |
ferrymen, men who carried the public
over rivers: and each of whom it was
| important to the public that they, as
times then were, should be constantly
at their post. Physicians and members
of organized fire departments, per-
haps, come within the same sphere
| now.
| 1T seems to me that there are now
entirely too many Of these statutory
exemptions; too many men are rellev-
ed from jury service; and the result
is the loss to the jury system Of many
men in every community who should
serve on iuries and help To bring in
lust verdicts. and get to understand
better, by actual experience, the diff
culties of the situation, and be less