Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/96

 The "Jury.

THE THE main criticisms of trial by jury, says Mr. justice Brewer, of the United States Supreme Court, in an interesting ar ticle under the above title in The Interna tional Monthly, are directed against three points: first, the provision that the jury must be composed of twelve persons; second, the methods used for the purpose of secur ing a jury free from prejudice or predeter mined opinion of the merits of the contro versy: and third, the requirement that the decision be the unanimous agreement of the twelve jurors. Concerning the number of the jurors, the learned Justice finds that "there is no magic in that number, no mysterious reason why there should be twelve rather than eight or sixteen. The purpose in requiring a jury to be composed of several persons is to ascer tain the average judgment of the community on the merits of the controversy. Through representations of the different vocations and different classes such average judgment will probably be secured. It is not likely to be expressed in the opinions of twelve doctors or twelve merchants or twelve farmers. But it would be futile to attempt to secure upon a jury even one representative of every form of industry and every class in life. Practi cally, the number should be large enough to secure a fairly average representation of the great body of citizens, and not so large as to be unwieldy or expensive. It may well be that where a man's life is at stake or where the amount in controversy is large, twelve should not be regarded as excessive, but where lighter offences are charged or the amount in controversy is small, it would seem that the ends of justice would be sub served were there but six or eight jurors; and certainly time and money would be saved thereby." After referring to the frequent difficulty and delay in securing a jury, especially in

67

UR Y. criminal cases, and noting the fact that often times the best qualified men are excused from jury duty, while their places are taken by the ignorant or untrustworthy, he has this to say: Before the day of the newspaper there was seldom any particular harshness or de lay, for there was little trouble in securing competent men, who had not even heard of the controversy. But now, with the press searching the corners of the country for every event of even trifling importance, it is almost impossible to find intelligent men in any county who have not heard some thing of every important case arising there in, who have not formed some opinion from what they have heard. It is not strange that much condemnation is heard of these protracted labors in im paneling a jury and of the unfortunate re sults which sometimes appear. And there must be a change, either through the action of the legislatures or of the courts them selves. Xo man should be held disqualified because he has read the newspaper report of a transaction or even heard some of the witnesses speak of it, and from such reading or hearing has formed a mere passing opin ion upon the case. No one for a moment supposes that the judge is disqualified or that he will incorrectly declare the law, al though he may have heard the whole story of the transaction. No more should an in telligent, honest man be held disqualified from passing judgment upon the facts for the simple reason that he has read or heard the story. Of course if he has a settled, positive conviction, that is reason for his ex cuse. There is something radically wrong in a system or practice which permits such a consumption of time, and often ends in bringing the most incompetent men on to the jury. While doubtless the presiding judge is often responsible for this result, there is