Page:North Dakota Law Review Vol. 1 No. 7 (1924).pdf/1



Rh

we reprint an editorial from the Fargo Forum of June 4th. It is a readable article, but is it constructive? If nothing more were said or done, would it do more than discredit the legal profession?

Suppose we agree, first, that intelligence and ability to weigh evidence, rather than lack of intelligence or disinterestedness, should govern in the selection of juries. That does not argue that intelligence and ability to weigh evidence, together with disinterestedness, would not be better.

Who would want to trust the lives of individuals or the rights of society to those who have previously formed opinions? Who having formed an opinion, can judge matters brought before him with due regard for the rights of all parties concerned? And who, having read the mass of “stuff” that has been printed about the particular case referred to in the editorial, could have kept his mind free from a prejudicial opinion for or against?

The problem confronting the Bar and the public isn’t solved by saying that the fault lies in “the way in which attorneys make use of the jury system.” All the fault does not lie there. Some of it may lie in “many peculiarities of the system.” Some of it may lie in the ready catering to an apparent desire for salacious and sensational news. Some of it may even lie in the unwillingness of legislators to listen to the lawyers.

The Bar would appreciate the aid of any outside agency in solving the problem. It has been and is giving earnest and vigorous attention to it. It is not asleep, nor has it given up.

Suppose the writer of the editorial had been charged with a similar crime, what would he have said then? —Seck.