Evening star., 1936-12-07
Jurists, Reversing Court Of
Appeals, Take Cognizance
of Difficulty Of Obtaining
Competent Panels Here.
NO REASON FOR BIAS,
JUSTICE HUGHES SAYS
Suggestion Federal Employe
Might Be Influenced by Fear of
Losing Job Held Farfetched.
Fear Decision May Impair Re-
spect for Courts Secuted.
BY JOHN HI. CLINE.

The supreme Court, in an opinion
of great importance in the District,
ruled today that Government en-
ployes may serve on criminal juries
unless they are disqualified for some
specific reason in a particular case.
This ruling terminates a long fight
by District officials to remove from
Federal workers an old disqualified
ton based on the theory they would
be prejudiced against a defendant
because their employer. the United
States Government, happened to be a
party to the case.
The disqualification was removed
by Congress after District prosecuting
officials had attributed the difficulty
of obtaining competent jurors to the
fact that they could not draw some
100000 Government employees. fully
qualified in all other respects, for
jury service.
The courts opinion. with three Of
the justices dissenting, was delivered
by Chief Justice Hughes in the case
of Raymond Wood, convicted in
Police Court of petty larceny. Wood
carried his case to the Court Of
Appeals, contending the conviction
should be set aside an the theory he
did not receive an impartial trial
because the trial judge permitted
several Federal workers to serve on
the jury. The Appeals Court agreed
with his contentious and reversed the
conviction.
Effect of Decision.
The decision in this case will have
the effect OF affirming convictions al
ready obtained in two other impor-
tant cases. One of these involved the
conviction of Samuel 5. Montgomery
and 16 co-defendants in the largest
liquor conspiracy ring uncovered here
since the repeal of prohibition. The
other case concerned the conviction
of Morris E. (Dutch) Irwin, one Of
the city's better-known gamblers, on
gaming charges.
| The Government carried the case to
the Supreme Court, urging a reversal
Of the appellate courts decision IN
the interest of eflcient administration
of justice in the District.
| Chief Justice Hughes, in a lengthy
opinion, reviewed the history of the
accepted qualifications Of jurors.
pointing out that, from the earliest
days OF common Law, the courts in
criminal cases had exerted every ef-
| ford to insure the right of the de-
fendant to trial by fair and i'm
partial jury.
Situation in District.
Coming down to the situation in
the District, he pointed out, however,
that the ultimate question is not
whether Congress has changed COM
mon law rule, but whether, in reason,
an absolute disqualification Of gov
ernmental employees to serve as jurors
in criminal cases is essential to the
impartiality of the jury.
should it be assumed that a juror
merely because of employment by the
Government, would be biased against
the accused? In criminal prosecu-
tions the Government is acting simply
as the instrument of the public in
enforcing legal laws for the protection
Of society. In that enforcement al
citizens are interested 1t is difhcult
to see why a governmental employe
merely by virtue Of his employment
| is interested in that enforcement
either more or less than any good
| citizen Is or should be"
Provisions Of Law.
phe opinion pointed out that thu
law qualifying Government worker,
permits full inquiry as to actual biat
In any case.
Taking up another contention By
Woods attorneys, the Chief Justice
said:
1T is suggested that an employt
of the Government may be appre'
hensive of the termination of hi,
employment in case he decides ir
favor of the accused in q crimina
case. Unless the suggestion be taker
to have reference to some special
and exceptional case, it seems to us
far-fetched and chimerical. It doe
not rise to the dignity of an argu'
ment to be addressed to the power
of Congress to provide a reasonable
scheme with respect to the qualifica.
tions of jurors"
In conclusion, Chief Justice Hughes
added:
Nor are We impressed with thu
contention that the qualification ol
governmental employees for jury serv'
ice in criminal cases in the District
will impair the public respect in which
the processes Of the law should b'
held On the contrary, we think tha'
the spectacle Of the exclusion er
masse from that service of a body oi
citizens otherwise highly desirable ir
point of intelligence and character
solely by reason of their employment
by the Government-and the i'm.
position In consequence Of Q heavier