Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1913-10-23

Following is Judge Atkinson s
Editor Georgian:
have read with great interest the
splendid editorial in your issue of yes
terday's date, entitled THE Jury Sys-
lem of Georgia on Trial" To your
mastery presentation of the occasion
and reasons for your editorial utter
suce at this time l could not hope to
add. In the concluding sentence of
that editorial you invite suggestions
from your readers as to the proper
method of safeguarding jurors in the
future" such as will make ''the jury
system of our State so strong that it
viii not break down anywhere"
System Is Simple.
[ shall not presume to enter upon
the discussion of the jury system rs it
relates to or its integrity is called in
question in the particular case to
which you refer. 1t Is presumed that
the courts will so deal with that mat
ter that no odium can attach to our
Jury system because of any revela-
tons which may have been made in
that case.
However, such revelations may re-
feet upon the individual juror or
Jurors whose conduct is called in
question. I will, however, as an
interested reader of your editorial,
claim your indulgence and ask the
privilege of submitting some obser-
vations upon the general subject con-
corning which you invite discussion
and suggestion.
1t is submitted that the jury sys-
TEN of this State. as system, is as
nearly perfect as human ingenuity
can devise. 1t possesses the merit of
extreme simplicity to start with. 1t
provides that none other save upright
and intelligent citizens shall sit upon
iuries. 1t requires and provides for
the impartial selection, by sworn jury
commissioners, of the persons whose
names shall be entered upon the jury
list.
Drawing Impartial.
Ii provides a strictly impartial
method for the drawing of jurors, and
directs that they should be sum
moned by sworn officer Of the law.
After they are thus selected they
are chosen In the given case under q
system which is perfectly fair and
impartial as between the parties, and
they are even then as individual ju-
rors subjected to such an examination
az, but for the Intervention of the hu-
man element, assures absolutely the
selection of only upright, intelligent
and impartial jurors TO pass upon the
ISSUES made
| submit, therefore, that the sys-
fem, in and of itself. is sufficiently
strong. If this system, in its just
operation, fails to furnish such jury
as the law requires and such a jury
as measures up to the highest stand
ard of human perfection, in my judg =
ment, we will have to look deeper
than and beyond the system for the
causes which produce the failure.
Causes of Bias.
lection those charged with the admin
iStration of the system have failed of
their duty the responsibility is and
should be upon the individual officers
charged with The duty of selection.
Let us suppose, however, that there
has been no failure here, and that still
upon the jury there appears one who
because of bias or prejudice, enters
upon the trial with q fixed determine .
ton, we will say, in a criminal case.
either to convict or acquit the de-
tendant; the presence of such man
on jury could result only from one
Of two causes-either dense ignor-
ance, almost to the point of imbecil-
lty, or ineXcusable and criminal corr
TuptiOn.
Before being sworn in a felony
case each individual juror is required
TO answer on oath, these three ques-
ions in order to test his impartiality:
First Have you. from having seen
the crime committed, or from having
heard any of the testimony delivered
on oath, formed and expressed an
opinion in regard to the guilt or in
nocence of the prisoner at the bar?
When Disqualified.
If he answers Yes, he is disquali-
fed
Second. Have you any bias or pref
udlce in your mind. either for or
against the prisoner at the bar?
An affirmative answer to this ques-
ton disqualifes him.
Inlrd. Are you perfectly impartial
between the State and the accused
II the answer is in the negative, he
is disqualified.
therefore submit to every candid