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

en- of Georgia on Trial" To your
ma sterlv presentation Of the occasion
and reasons for your editorial utter
ance at this time l could not hope to
add, In the concluding sentence of
hat 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
will not break down anywhere"
System Is Simple.
/ shall not presume to enter upon
ne discussion of the jury system as 1t
relates to or it's 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-
lions which may have been made In
hat case,
However, such revelations may re-
fleet upon the individual juror or
Jurors whose conduct is called in
question. ! 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-
oerning which you invite discussion
and suggestion.
1t is submitted that the jury sys-
tem 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
he impartial selection, by sworn jury
.ommissioners, of the persons whose
names shall be entered upon the jury
LIST.
Drawing Impartial.
1t provides a strictly impartial
Method for the drawing of jurors, and
.iTects 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
system which is perfectly fair and
IMPARTIAL as between the parties, and
hey are even then as individual jul
nlrs subjected to such an examination
rs, but for the intervention of the hu-
nan element assures absolutely the
selection of only upright, intelligent
and impartial jurors to pass upon the
.ssues 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 a jury
as the law requires and such jury
rs measures up to the highest stand
ard Of human perfection, in my Judg-
nent, we will have to look deeper
han and beyond the system for the
causes which produce the failure.
Assuming that in the process of Sc
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 fixed determine
lion, we will say, in a criminal case,
either TO convict or acquit the de-
iendant; the presence of such a man
on a jury could result only from one
of two causes-either dense ignor-
ance, almost to the point Of imbecil-
ity, or inexcusable and criminal cor
ruption.
Before being sworn in a felony
Ease each individual juror Is required
10 answer, on oath, these three ques-
lions 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.
II he answers Yes, he is disquali-
fed.
Second. Have you any bias or pref
udice in your mind, either for or
against the prisoner at the bar?
An affirmative answer to this ques-
ION disqualifies him.
Third. Are you perfectly impartial
'etween the State and the accused?
If the answer is in the negative, he
is disqualified.
| therefore submit to every candid
mind that no man can truthfully and
honestly answer these questions and
permit himself to be chosen as juror
VI he has upon his MIND such a bias
rs amounts to fixed opinion in re-
gard to the guilt or innocence OF the
herson being tried.
II will be observed then, that the
.'uIt, if any, arising from failure OF
Justice in a given case, in so far as
nat failure rests upon the finding OF
jury, it is not to be attributed to
le jury system, nor ought the right
%. trial by jury be subjected to in
Gus criticism because OF the hap
''nlng of such an event, but, on the
"ntrary, it should be attributed to
t' man upon whom the system oper-
and who is engaged in the exc
.'.Gn Of the duties enjoined upon him
that system.
J, is therefore that fear the defect
which you refer lies deeper than
he system. 1t is imbedded in the
art and conscience of the man who
buses his right to sit on jury.
II trial by jury as an institution for
We administration of public justice
''hd by the term public justice l
means justice administered in ac-
.'Fdance with the law as opposed to
.4al species of private justice exem-
.HHed in the so-called system known
es trlal by mob) shall fail OF the pu--
LoSe for which 1t was originally de-
ssned, such failure must be attrib-
-5ed 10 the men by whom the law is
mustered, and not to other cause.
II men deliberately swear in as
tIors for the corrupt purpose OF
y. .lhglng about a particular result, or
Ter being sworn in, If LED by preju-
I've tney heed not the voice OF rea-
s,5u' or IL overma stored by passion
,neE should tear away the very pill
,'iS or the temple in order to crafty
,,r private malice or a supposed