Evening star., 1927-11-07
The Jury System.

4Hc jury OyolCn'
The American jury system. which Is
just now subject of countrywide
discussion because of the withdrawal
of the panel in the Fall-Sinclair case
as a result of suspicion of espionage
over the jurymen conducted by the
defense, is a direct adaptation from
the English system Of common law
trials. The function Of the jury has
completely changed from it's begin.
ming. Originally those persons from
the vicinity Of the crime or other
cause of trial who had knowledge of
the matter were summoned to court
to state upon oath what the common
opinion of the neighborhood was as
to the facts which formed the basis
of the criminal charge to be tried, or
of the right to possession or enjoy
ment Of land which was at issue, these
being the typical cases of early days.
1t was early established that twelve
'substantiar' men were a sufficient
number to determine this question. AS
litigation grew more extensive and
as courts came to have wider jurisdic-
tion it was found that the attendance
of twelve persons acquainted with the
facts of each cause to be tried would
impose an intolerable burden upon the
community and the plan was develop
ed of submitting legal controversies
to the decision of impartial juries,
sworn to determine the facts in issue
upon testimony given under oath by
witnesses summoned by both sides.
Thus at the outset jurors were
chosen because of their knowledge of
the facts and of the opinion Of the
community. A great change has taken
place. Jurors are chosen because Of
their lack of knowledge Of the facts
and of public opinion, especially be-
cause they have themselves no set
opinions. In the winnowing out Of
veniremen the entertainment of
fixed opinion is the most frequent
cause of rejection. Prejudice, rela.
tionship in business, kinship in any
degree exclude person from the
panel.
In earlier times it was not difficult
to secure jury composed Of men who
had no knowledge Of the case and had
formed no opinions, for the spread of
news was narrow and many persons
were unaware of happenings that are
today the commonplaces of public in
formation. Now with high degree
of literacy in this country, with the
voluminous issue of newspapers, with
the extensive publication of facts and
conjectures concerning criminal cases,
with the freedom of discussion that
precedes trial, it is next to impossible
to find in any community twelve
intelligent persons who are not more
or less acquainted with the circum.
stances and who have not in some
degree formed opinions regarding the
guilt or innocence of those who may
be accused of crime.
Originally the jury considered ques-
tions Of law as well as Of fact, and
indeed in this country up to com.
paratively recent date the doctrine
by which this was permitted was
sustained. 1t was not until 1895 that
the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled in agreement with Chief
Justice Mitchell Of Pennsylvania,
nvatf7 in,
that it is the duty OF the jury in
criminal cases to receive the law from
the court and to apply it as given by
the court.
Unanimity Of the verdict is an
essential feature of the jury system
as known to English law and has been
expressly so decided by the Supreme
Court Of this country. A few of the
States have modified the system by
providing for juries of less than
twelve and for verdicts rendered by a
vote less than unanimous. In con.
sequence Of the unanimity require
ment mistrials through failures Of
juries to agree upon a verdict have
been frequent. Much of the conges-
ton in the courts and the delays in
the administration Of justice may be
attributed to this requirement.
The sanctity of the jury is one of
the fundamentals OF the system.
Interference with the free judgment
Of the twelve persons sitting as inter.
prefers Of the facts is rightly regarded
by the public as most heinous
offense, deserving the severest punish
ment. Under the law Of unanimity 1t
is necessary only by coercion or cor
ruption to influence one person to
prevent conviction, and this possibility
offering such strong temptation to a
guilty defendant. evokes the highest
Indignation on the part Of the com
munity when suspicion arises that
this criminal enterprise has beer
undertaken.
Circumstances arise when one sleutf
has to go out and try to catch an
other.