Evening star., 1948-12-22
Government Workers as Jurors

supreme COurC minority VI 1OuI, Will
Justice Jackson as its spokesman, is dis
turbed over the appearance OF bias IN
juries made up of Government employees.
There is something, to be sure, that goes
against the grain in contemplating the
trial of a citizen who does not work for
the Government by twelve OF his peers
who do - especially when the case is
brought in the name of the Government.
g" Such jury" said the minority,
"has one-sided look on problems before
1t and an appearance of Government
leverage which is in itself a blemish on
the name of justice in the District of
Columbia"
But bias in such juries, the majority
held, is more apparent than real. So 1t
would seem in the case decided Monday.
Though the case was unusual, for every
member Of the jury was Government
employe. there was nothing advanced in
argument to show that the defendant
did not receive fair trial at the hands OF
IAN impartial Jury" This is traverSing old
ground in the District of Columbia Gov
ernment employees had in effect been
disqualified from jury service by court
rulings until Congress- in 1885, made them
eligible with other citizens, thus prevent
ing a situation in which about half the
employed citizens in Washington would
have been disqualified.
The statute was wise and so, 1t Is be-
lieved, was the majority of the Supreme
Court. Despite Justice Jackson's pictur-
esque argument to the contrary, there Is
little reason to believe that a Government
- 1,,~1, ar1,io 10
apt to think of pleasing his employer"
than of rendering fair and just verdict.
Elimination of the Government worker
from jury service in Washington would
prevent a jury panel that is I'm TRUTH
representative of the community. 1t Is
not a good thing to find a jury composed
wholly of Government workers. But that
sort of jury, though possible, is by no
means a usual thing. The Districts eff
cient Jury Commission keeps some 10000
names ahead of the drawing OF panels; II
necessary 1t can increase that by 10000
names. In one recent sampling, Govern
ment workers ran about rs per cent, though
they now constitute about 81 per cent OF
gainfully employed adults in Washington.
There is no reason why any local jury need
De packed WIFI IUNCAAHlCllt WolnSAo'
Justice Jackson's dissent did single out
one point that represents some disadvan-
tage to nom Government workers. These
are now paid S. a day for jury service,
which is often received in lieu OF regular
earnings and may mean financial sacri-
flee. The Government worker, while not
compensated for jury service, is able to
serve by going on leave with pay. Some
excusals of nom Government workers from
Jury service may be based on preventing
financial hardship and private employers
should be encouraged to grant to their own
employees the same consideration shown by
Government as an employer.
Justice Jackson is pessimistic of the
future He fears the system here even
tually may produce a "Scandalous" neces-
sity for reversal of some important con-
viction. But it is difficult to believe that
the scandal would result merely from
availability of Government employees as
jurymen. For up 70 this time there is
nothing to indicate that they think or
act unlike other conscientious citizens
because of Government employment.