Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/276

 Development of Trial by jfury. many other great principles of her consti tution out of events and conditions which were peculiar to herself and her develop ment. The danger of submitting to the same persons the power of accusing and the power of subsequently trying the accused, was soon apprehended and emphasized the necessity of a second and independent jury upon whose decision should rest conviction or ac quittal. This was the petit jury as distin guished We cannot from the say grand that there jury was of accusation. only one possible origin for the jury. We cannot even say that England was utterly unpre pared for the introduction of the Frankish inquest, for as early as the year 997 we read how a moot is to be held in every wapentake, and how the twelve eldest thanes are to go out with the reeve and swear upon a relic that they will accuse no innocent and conceal no guilty man. This certainly looks like a jury of accusation, and from it we should draw the conclusion that its origin was popular and not royal, if we did not know that the practice was the result of, and in keeping with, an ordinance of Ethelred. We may safely say that the Frankish in quest was introduced into England before the Conquest; and that the Norman duke brought it with him in a more developed form as one of his royal prerogatives, can scarcely be doubted. We find in Pollock & Maitland's "History of English Law" that England had scarcely been conquered when the sworn inquest of neighbors appeared as part of the system of government and royal justice. The great record known as "Domes day Book" was in part a compilation of the verdicts of juries. About this time we see the use of the trial by jury extending it self, slowly at first, however, for we scarcely hear of it in the "Leges Henrici," and throughout a large part of the Norman period, the trial by jury, the admittance of the inquest into any proceeding, is re garded as an exception. Under Henry II., however, the exception becomes the rule.

241

During his reign and the reign of the Plantaganet kings which followed, this instrument of royal justice, which had been found in England by the conquering Normans, and modified by them in applying their own principles to it, was developed into the then modern trial by jury. Henry II. ex panded and formulated it to such an extent that he was naturally regarded as the founder of it in its English character. First he uses it as a royal prerogative, then ex tends it so that it becomes the privilege of all and the settled law of the land. It may be well to pause and point out the development of the grand or presentment jury and the traverse or petit jury under Henry II., as well as the distinction which existed between them and the purposes for which they were employed. We may say that the jury in general was used for two pur poses. First, to render decision in civil procedure as shown in the Grand Assize, Assizes of Novel Disseisin, Mort d' Ancestor, Pre sentment and other actions. Second, to de termine guilt or innocence of the party ac cused. In the first case it is an inquest, and in a proprietary action for land the tenant has the privilege to reject a trial by battle and submit to the decision of the inquest, which was conducted in the following manner. The sheriff of the county summoned four knights who, when they had been sworn, chose twelve lawful knights who knew the facts and circumstances and who should de cide upon oath which party had the better title. If they were agreed all was well, but if not, dissenting jurors were dismissed and new knights were called to fill their places until there was an unanimity of opinion and a decision was reached. This was known as afforcing the assize. Many things concern ing its practice are objectionable. We see, in the first place, that a majority of the jurors ruled, for it was the majority who in a divided decision, retained their places, and it was the minority who were dismissed and