Evening star., 1926-10-12

tallurC OF the Trial Oh lOTllcT AZ
torney General Daugherty and former
Alien Property Custodian Miller to
result in either acquittal or conviction
brings the Jury system as in vogue in
this country once more into question
as to its efficiency. After five weeks
Of testimony and argument. the
twelve men chosen to sit in Judgment
upon the questions Of fact found
themselves in irreconcilable disagree
ment. It is reported that they stood
evenly divided as to one defendant
and ten for the conviction Of the
other, with two for acquittal. They
were discharged after sixty-six hours
of deliberation, the longest period
ever known in that jurisdiction.
American federal law and the law
in most of the States require unani-
nous verdicts from juries. That is
likewise the English law, from which
the jury system Sprang. In feW or
the States in this country verd1cts
rendered by vote less than unanl-
NOUS are permitted In Scotland
juries for the trial of criminal cases
consist Of fifteen persons, and the
verdicts need not be unanimous. A
Scotch jury may in addition to the
verdicts of guilty" and mot guilty"
render a verdict of mot proven" ="
which has legally the same effect as
an acquitta1 in releasing the accused
from further proceedings on the par
ticular charge, but inf1icts on him the
stigma of moral guilt.
The jury system was established in
this country by reason of the fact
that it was part Of the common law of
England. which prevailed in the col
onies before the Declaration Of indie
pendence. It was written into the
American Constitution, together with
ather principles Of law similarly de-
rived. But from the beginning Of in
dependent government in America
there has been objection to the jury
system. principally on the score Of the
requirement of a unanimous verdict,
on the ground of the danger Of dis
agreement and mistrial or the sacri-
flee of opinions conscientiously held
by minority jurymen. The Supreme
Court Of the United States has de-
cided expressly in favor of the
unanimity rule. This decision does
not govern in State jurisdictions, and,
as mentioned, some of the States have
adopted the majority rule.
Mistrials through disagreement are
not common. They occur occasionally
in cases of such notoriety as to create
the impression in some minds that
the jury system is a failure as a
means of reaching conclusions. There
always remains. however. the possi-
bility of retrial, although there is
reluctance to engage in the second
effort on account of the cost, especial
ly in a protracted proceeding. 1t has
been estimated that the Miller
Daugherty trial cost no less than half
a million dollars, and a retrial would
cost iIo ISSS. L Ills leeSIoi VI
expense may determine in the present
case whether the two accused men
will be again summoned to the bar
to be tried by jury of their peers.
A serious misfortune in the matter
of a mistrial in a notable case arises
from the fact that it becomes more
difficult in the second instance than in
the first to obtain a jury of twelve
men who have not formed prejudicial
opinions regarding the issues. So
widespread has been the interest in
the Miller Daugherty trial that 1t
would be hard to find dozen intel
ligent citizens who have not been af-
fected in some degree by the widely
published accounts of the case. How
ever. il is undeniably desirable that
this charge against two former of
ficials of high rank. q charge of NAL
feasanca and conspiracy, should be
brought TO a definite conclusion and
not allowed to remain undetermined
with heavy preponderance of judg-
ment against the one and an equal
division of opinion in respect to the
other.