Year: 1873

A great deal of nonsense has been written
about the glorious Anglo-Saxon privilege OF
Trial by Jury, and we do not propose to
add anything to the proportions of its tradi-
tional reputation. Excellent as it is, like all
human institutions it has its share of human
infrInty. The theory is that twelve men in
box, when they arc of 'accordant minds,
cannot be mistaken; the fact is that they
are very often absurdly so. They are judges
of the evidence and, to not very well defined
extent, they are judges of the law but it does
not follow that they may not, under control
ing influences Of prejudice or of intellectual
diffusion judge weakly and enormously.
For the purposes of this discussion we
put cases of disagreement out OF the
question. But even when jurors are techni-
cally all of one mind, it is easy to see that
they may have arrived at this state of amiable
accordance by different paths, and that some
of their paths may have been crookedly illogi-
cal. Still, when no improper influences have
been detected, it must stand. 1t may
be contrary to law and to justice and to the
weight of evidence, but unless its defects in
each of these particulars be extreme, it Is better
and wiser to lot the verdctremain undisturbed.
But although this may be our deliberate opinion,
we have not arrived at it through any
bigoted idea Of the infallibility Of jurymen.
We think as we do because it is better in
civil actions that litigation should be quieted,
and that in criminal prosecutions we should con-
cede to the prosecuted all the rights which as
public prosecutors we claim and assume.


There is, however, sort of verdict which Is
mischievous to the last degree. 1t is what
we may call the notional verdict 1t comes of
the propensity of jurors to travel out of the
record, and TO attribute to hints afforded by
the hearing, all the weight of positive evil
dence. AS clay in the hands of the potter are
Jurors of loose turn of mind in the hands Of
clever and insinuating advocate, who can
manage to imbue their minds with hints and
suggestions and surmises and shallow and
shadowy theories, until the plain facts as
elected by the testimony are forgotten, and
Something which is not and could not be evil
dence is permitted to excite doubts, and ulti-
mately to lead to acquittal or disagree
ment. F0rl the purposes of illustration We
refer to the case of DR.. West in Delaware,
which we have already discussed. He was
indicted for the murder of q cOlored man.
The jury found West "nOt guilty" on the
ground that he acted in self-defense. Moth
ing could be stupider or more gratuitous than
such a conclusion, for upon the trial not
a scintilla of evidence was produced in sup
port of it. The real defense urged by
the counsel for West was his insanity,
produced partly by the inhalation of chloro-
form and of nitrous oxide gas, to which it
was claimed that the prisoner was addicted.
The only support of the theory upon which
the jury decided was the utterly loose and un-
trustworthy statements BOf West, made to the
officers at the time Of his arrest, and which
crept into the heads of the jurors through the
testimony of those officers. For verdict they
did not afford the slightest base, nor were
they relied upon by the prisoners attorneys; ;
and yet this intelligent, quick-witted, and
most conscientious Delaware jury brought in
o verdict of "Not Guilty" on the ground of
self-defense


1t is clearly desirable that some method
may be devised of keeping jurors within the
boundaries of common sense and sound
deduction. For their verdicts they are not
responsible, except morally; but when they
assign their reasons, those verdicts are fairly
open to criticism. If they are altogether un-
sustained by evidence, they are no more
worthy of respect than guess, good or bad
Even a happy conjecture is infinitely below
the dignity of conclusion methodically
arrived at The vice of the jury system, which
in the opinion of some able jurists quite
counterbaances all its advantages, is that it
opens wide field for guesswork, notions,
and the indulgence of untimely sympathies,
and puts judicial investigations quite outside
the pale Of scientific accuracy.