Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-05-06
The Coroner's jury,

llE OU4UnC1 u VI
Intelligent criticism of the coroner's
fury IS criticism of an institution and a
system that changed conditions may
have rendered archaic. Such criticism
is nothing new and reflects in no way
upon the personalities involved. The
coroner's Jury is only another one of
the many legal legacies inherited from
old England, and it is only natural that
thought should be directed in this
twentieth century toward radically re-
vising or abolishing a system that orig
mated before the close of the first. The
coroner's first job was to crown the
anorphosis into the official that he is
today and how he attached a jury in
the process Of his transformation would
I'LL book about nineteen hundred years
long.
The same criticism that is generally
directed against the jury system as a
whole may be applied to the coroner's
jury. But there are important differ
ences. The coroner's jury of1ciates in
a mere court of record. Its actions are
in no wise binding, for or against the
person brought before it. If the cor
oner's jury errs on the side of leniency,
the authorities are not estopped by its
action in proceeding to correct the err
ror. If it errs the other way, exonera-
ton rests In the hands Of the grand
jury or the courts. If its action in hold
ing a person attaches a certain unde-
served stigma, that must be blamed on
unfortunate and unusual circumstances
rather than upon the coroner's jury.
Here in Washington there are well
founded criticisms which should receive
the attention they deserve. Little or no
importance is attached to a summons
for duty on a coroner's jury, with the
result that the coroner is sometimes put
to it to secure the requisite number Of
Jurors. This may bring into service
members of a coterie of available men
who are always willing to earn a few
dollars by jury service, such condition
being reminiscent Of the days when all
the iuries in the courts in the District
were so filed. This could be rectifled by
enforcing duty on coroner'S jury from
q regularly prepared panel, and If the
coroner's jury is still considered a nee
essary institution no complaints against
the inconvenience Of such service would
be justified. Another matter deserving
attention is the presence Of one Of the
assistant district attorneys at a cor
oner's inquest. This officer now attends
inquests and takes part in the proceed
ings, but only through the sufierance
and upon the invitation Of the coroner.
AS a matter of law he should be re-
CURED to attend. He would undoubtedly
receive helpful information regarding
q case he later might present to the
grand Jury, while his questioning of wit
nesses might produce evidence Of value
to himself and to the coroner's jury.
There are few functions performed by
q coroner's jury that could not as well
be performed by some other agency. Its
ancient forte Of investigating fires Of
suspected incendiary origin or examin-
ing into the causes of accidents might
better be performed by the district at
torney, with the aid of technical, skilled
and Official advisers. Its recommends
lions, In unusual circumstances, could
as well emanate from other sources.
The death Of prisoner no longer calls
for coroner's inquest, if it is certified
by a physician or the coroner as being
due TO natural causes, while so much
responsibility is already reposed in the
coroner himself that it is difficult to be-
ueve a coroners jury treats other than
as a matter of course the cases that
are presented.
But as for throwing out and alto
gether dispensing with this ancient and
honorable relic of a noble past-that Is
another question!