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


Ir4itor Georgian:
7 have read with great interest the
,rendid editorial in your issue of yes
,,rdav's date, entitled "The Jury Sys-
ION, of Georgia on Trial" To your
m,srerIv presentation of the occasion
and reasons for your editorial utter
,rce a. this time | could not hope to
add In the concluding sentence of
bs, editorial you invite suggestions
from YOUR readers as to the proper
method of safeguarding jurors in the
Imure." 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 as 1t
relates to or it's integrity is called in
uestion in the particular case to
which YOU refer. 1t is presumed that
the courts will so deal with that mat
tor that no odium can attach to our
mrv system because of any revela-
Hons which may have been made in
/ that case.
However, such revelations may re-
feet upon the individual juror or
mrors whose conduct is called in
uestion. ! will, however, as an
| n,ere ted reader of your editorial,
| nim your indulgence and ask the
| wiyilege of submitting some obser-
ations upon the general subject con-
cerniug which you invite discussion
and suggestion.
Il is submitted that the jury sys-
F tenn Of this State, as a 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
land intelligent citizens shall sit upon
| uries 1t requires and provides for
the impartial selection, by sworn jury
commissioners, of the persons whose
names shall be entered upon the jury
/ hist.
Drawing Impartial.
!. provides a strictly impartial
|method for the drawing of jurors. and
| diTec's that they should be sum-
noned by a sworn officer of the law.
After they are thus selected they
are chosen in the given case under a
system which is perfectly fair and
| Impartial as between the parties, and
| they are even then as individual jul
Fors subjected to such an examination
az but for the Intervention of the hui
man element. assures absolutely the
|selection Of only upright, intelligent
and impartial jurors to pass upon the
SSles made
submit, therefore, that the sys-
en-, in and of itself, is sufficiently
strong. If this system, in its just
Operation, fails to furnish such jurS
as the law requires and such a jury
as measures up to the highest stand
| ard of human perfection, in my judg
| nent, we will have to look deeper
| iAan and beyond the system for the
auses which produce the failure.
Causes of Bias.
Assuming that in the process of Sc
ecion those charged with the admin
Sration of the system have failed OF
heir duty. the responsibility is and
should be upon the individual officers
charged with me duty of selection.
Let us suppose, however, that there
mas been no failure here, and that still
lpon the jury there appears one who
because of bias or prejudice, enters
lpon the trial with fixed determine
uon, we will say, in a criminal case
either to convict or acquit the de-
.endant; the presence of such a mar
On jury could result only from ono
|i two causes-either dense ignor-