Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/242

 NEWSPAPERS AND THE JURY zier v. State, 23 Ohio State 551, Ohio Laws, 1872, p. ii. This is not the only way in which the modern newspaper is affecting our criminal jury trials. To obtain the necessary in formation for lurid articles, enterprising re porters seek interviews at the homes of the jurors. In a recent murder case in New York County, The State v. Nan Patterson, one of the- New York journals of large cir culation published what purported to be an interview with the wives of the various jurors on the panel, giving their opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. There can be little doubt that those wives discussed with their husbands what the newspaper reporters had said. The whole proceeding was undignified and tended to introduce into the case an emotional and sensational element which should always, as far as possible, be eliminated. The remedy would seem to be contempt proceedings against the newspapers for which legisla tion might be necessary. As the law stands at present, perhaps the only solution of the difficulty would be the impaneling of bachelors only. Another feature of the important crimi nal trials in our large cities is their tendency to take each year a longer time to try. This seems also to be due largely to the sensational newspaper which spreads in great detail before the public the whole con duct of the case. Even the most conserva tive newspapers will often devote more col umns to the report of a murder trial than they do to any other matter of news. This inevitably makes the case seem more im portant than it would otherwise. Counsel for the State and for the defense have the •whole city and its suburbs for their audi ence. They naturally strain every nerve to put in their case with the greatest regard for details. The evidence is voluminous. Sometimes it takes several days to draw the jury. Consequently the chance of a mis trial through the sickness of a juror is greatly increased, and such a mistrial did

225

take place in the Patterson case above re ferred to. This is most unfortunate from every point of view. These trials are now made so long that the expense to the par ties is tremendous. When a jury has dis agreed, or a criminal case has been reversed on appeal, it is sometimes a practical ques tion whether the State can afford another trial. All the funds at the disposal of a District Attorney's office should not be spent in trying to convict one person. It should certainly be the aim of the law to make our criminal trials as certain and swift as possible. To avoid mistrials in such cases would therefore be a great gain. Is there any reason why it is not as satis factory to have a man tried by eleven jur ors as by twelve? The history of the jury shows that its numbers have varied greatly from time to time. In the reign of Henry VI a judge remarked that the number was discretionary with the court. Not until 1367 does 1 2 seem to have become the fixed num ber. In 1665 we read in Duncomb's Trials per pais (8th Ed. p. 92), this account of the sanctity and foreordained character of the jury's number: "And first as to their num ber twelve; and this number is no less es teemed by our law than by Holy Writ. If the twelve apostles on their twelve thrones must try us in our eternal state, good rea son hath the law to appoint the number of twelve to try our temporal. The tribes of Israel were twelve. The patriarchs were twelve, and Solomon's officers were twelve. (I Kings, IV, 7.) . . . Therefore not only matters of fact were tried by twelve, but of ancient times twelve judges were to try matters of law in the Exchequer Chamber, and there were twelve Councillors of State for matters of State. And he that wageth his law must have eleven others with him who believe he says true." In the present day we probably do not feel much bound by the precedent of the Apostles, and we see from the early cases, that convenience might well have fixed upon any other number between sixty-six and