Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/572

 Modifications of the Jury System. other reforms in the judicial system that are more urgently demanded than the abolition of the unit jury rule in civil actions. The best results of the jury system are sometimes lost by the death or disability of one of the jurors. The general rule in such cases is to summon a new jury and have the entire case commenced again at the begin ning. This is a serious defect i" the judicial system. In important cases it is frequently difficult to get a jury. In one case in the city of New York, weeks were consumed in getting a jury and when the evidence was all in and the jurors were deliberating' upon their verdict one became insane. Experts on insanity were called to examine him and testify as to his competency to render a ver dict. The resu'.t was the usual one when ex perts are employed. The experts failed to appeals. In another case, a criminal case in the same city, one of the jurors became ill just as the evidence was being summed up. The result was a new 'trial. This cost the city of New York thousands of dollars, and oc cupied the attention of the court for many weeks. In another case one of the jurors died while waiting to render a verdict. The only thing that can be done in such cases is to begin at the beginning and have a new trial. In civil cases this difficulty can be avoided if counsel are willing to go on with less than twelve jurors. In a criminal case, however, this cannot be (Jone without express author ity in the constitution. The courts have gen erally held that while the right to jury trial may be waived in civil cases, it cannot be waived in criminal cases, and that trial by jury means trial by a jury of twelve. In the following States provision has been made so that death or disability of a juror does not interrupt the trial: STATES IN WHICH ILLNESS OR DEATH OF JUROR NEED NOT INTERRUPT TRIAL. Colorado— Civil case?. C. C. P. § 189. Idaho—Civil cases. R. S. '87, §4381.

519

Iowa—Civil cases by consent of parties. Code '97 § 37I3Michigan—Civil cases if nine jurors remain. Howell's S. § 7622. Nevada—Civil cases. C. L. 'oo, § 3261. North Dakota—Civil Ca,ses. R. Codes '99, §5439. Oregon.—Civil cases by consent of parties. Hill's S. '87, § 199, South Dakota—Civil cases. Ann. S. '99, § 6262. Texas—Civil cases if nine jurors remain. R. S. '95. § 3229. Same in misdemeanors in district court. White. Crim. Code, § 745. Tennessee—Civil cases by consent of parties. Code '06, § 4688. Utah—Civil cases. R. S. '98, § 3757. Washington—Civil cases by consent of parties. Ballinger's S. § 5000.

In the interest of economy it has been argued that a jury may safely consist of less than twelve. In the following States pro visions for such juries exist: STATES IN WHICH JURY MAY CONSIST OF LESS THAN TWELVE IN COURTS OF RECORD. Arkansas— By consent of parties in cases less than felony. Statutes '94, §2121. California—By consent of parties in civil actions and misdemeanors. C. C. P. '97, § 194. Colorado— Six to twelve in civil cases on de mand and payment of fees. '91, p. 83. Connecticut— Nine or more in civil cases by writ ten consent of parties. G. S. '88, §1103. Florida—Twelve in capital cases, six in others. R. S. '92, §2854. Georgia— Not less than five in all except city and superior courts. Const, art. 6, § 18. Code '95, vol. 2, § 4143. Idaho— Less than twelve in civil cases by consent of parties. R. S. '87, § 3939. Illinois—Twelve or six by agreement in trials of right to property in county courts. R. S. '99, p. 1274. Indiana—Three to twelve by agreement in civil cases. Ann. S. '97, §521. Kentucky— Less than twelve by agreement in all cases except felony. Statutes '94, § 2252. Louisiana—When punishment may be hard labor, jury of five; when must be hard labor, jury of twelve. Const. §116. Montana— Less than twelve by consent in civil c? ses ami criminal cases not amounting to felony. Const, art. 3, § 23. Nevada—Not less than fo'.'.r by consent in civil cases. C. L. § 3256. Oregon— Less than twelve by consent in civil cases. Ann. L. '87, § 180. Utah—Eight jurors in all but capital cases. Const. art. I, § 10. Washington—N<4 less than three by consent in civil cases. Ballinger's S. § 4978.