New Britain herald., 1928-10-31
HE EXPANDING JURY SYSTEM

made against the jury system 1t continues to register its triumphs. The latest nation of importance to adopt it, at the same time supplant- ing system that dated from its carly history. has been Japan. 1t has now been only month since Nippon has accorded every citizen accused of serious crime the right to be tried by twelve good men and true" Only the need for enlarging every court ! room in Japan delayed the adoption of the jury system for six years after the Japanese law had been passed.
 Although the jury system has
 withstood criticism since the time when Henry II firmly implanted it in Anglo Saxon jurisprudence, it's al
 most universal adoption has been subject to modification. Thus we I have it in Connecticut that under ! certain circumstances those charged with crime can ask trial by jury or by three judges. Even in England
 whence our juridical system was de- rived, this proviso has obtained. In France. where the jury system was adopted during the days of the Re, oIution and where it was prompt ly degraded by packing the jurics during the Reign of Terror, day civil suits never arc heard before iurics. In Scandinavian countries jurics arc employed only in libel suits.
 A modification of the jury trial that rishttuIly creates criticism Is inc modern practice in some states whereby lawyers go 10 extremes to prevent those knowing anything about a case from jury service. In the earlier iuries directly the opposite was the rule-j -jurym.n were selected 
 because they knew more about a crime than others. In. our day. despite the widespread manner of impartjns information through the public press. the tendency has been to bar all citizens from jury service who may have heard or read about q crime, even if honest citizens Of intelligence might. regard this as no i Tit reason why they should not be | capable of coming to a fair conclu- sion if on the jury. The result is that only the most unintclligent citizen- ship are amcnablc to jury service under such conditions. It is surpris- ing indeed that in sensational cases any jury at all can be procured Such a development as this is manifest ly foolish and is the source of most of the criticism incident 10 tn. jury .
 There is q saying among lawyers in this country that "there is no telling what the jury will do." un- ! fortunately it is easy 10 relate cX- arwplcs of jury vcrdicts which have outraged the prevailing opinions of | guilt. Basically. however. one finds ] that much of lie criticism relates to unut"llgent jurics through the sys- ! tenn of barrng intelligence from en- i )"ring the jury box in the first place. | It Is natural that a jury of morons ] will be swaye1 by their emotions and ! pre- i,ldice rather than by the tcsti- nony and the evidence. Ii could not , l,e otherwise. There would be ! precious little cause for criticisIng { jury verdicts at all if the object were to place men-and women in such states where they arc amcnable 10 jury seryice--into the jury box who arc of high character. intelligent.
 and able 10 judge a case on its | merits
 The jury system remains supreme; but in American jurisprudence We
 need to exercise more care in how
 we handle the system.
 | Edgar Allan Poe. former attorney general for Maryland. in debate
 with Martin W. Littleton in the | Forum" crystaIlizes the, faults oi the system:
 Tn the first place, those who arc l best fitted for jury service are either ] exempted, excused, or challenged; in { consequence, those who actually sit in judgment are untrained and are generally of only average intelli- eence. Unaccustomed 10 assume heavy responsibilities. unskilled in | deciding matters of complicated ] character and grave import. they take their duties lightly. Very few jurors have ever served before they do unwillingly and regretfully. with