axwri * ! w * * ! H & . ? * , ' * )
6 Conservative *
TRIAL BY JURY.
PART II.
The time for the careful consideration
of the wisdom of trial by jury , in civil
proceedings , has now been reached. In
criminal cases , the jurors have but one
question to decide , viz : The guilt or
iimqceuoe of the accused , and , it is pos
sible , that the employment of juries , for
this purpose , may , at present , be the
most desirable method of reaching a
conclusion. The questions involved , in
the majority of civil cases , are far more
intricate and technical.
The jury system exists , chiefly , in the
United States , Great Britain , and coun
tries under British control. Instead of
being the usual method of determining
matters of fact , among the enlightened
nations of the world , it is the excep
tional method. It has not been adopted
by the nations of continental Europe ,
although such countries as Germany ,
France and Switzerland , have attained
a high degree of civilization , and are
engaged in most of the numerous indus
tries of the age , both commercial and
agricultural. As a result , the controver
sies in their courts , are as varied , and
as complicated , as are those of the En
glish-speaking world , where trial by
jury is the almost universal custom ;
and as they are apt to arouse the same
passions , as well as to excite the same
prejudices , they demand an equal
knowledge of the practical affairs of
life. Continental Europe , however , ap
pears'to have found no need for the
jury system , in spite of its operation for
centuries in the neighboring country of
Great Britain , and for fully a century in
the United States. Moreover , it is unde
niable that nearly all the nations of con
tinental Europe , which have adopted the
process of trial by jury in criminal
cases , have rejected the characteristic of
unanimity , which is considered of para
mount importance in the Great Bepub-
lie , and in the British Isles. This con
dition shows that trial by jury is not
essential to the decision of important
questions of fact , and it also furnishes
some evidence that it is not the best
method , otherwise , it would , in all prob
ability , have been incorporated in the
judical systems of all nations.
Incompetency of the Jury.
The absence of experience , in the
functions of a legal tribunal , under
which the majority of juries necessarily
labor , is of itself a complete disqualifi
cation for dealing with cases of an in
volved character , such as those which
occupy a great part of the time of the
courts. Any case , which contains a
complication of facts , with contradic
tory evidence on both sides , and requires
both natural sagacity , and the habit of
weighing and comparing conflicting
arguments , and rejecting plausible falla
cies , is beyond the capacity of men of
mediocre education , who , in a vast
number of instances , never decided a
case before , and who , as might be ex
pected , are often unable to agree upon a
verdict. Upon the other hand , it not
infrequently happens , that when they
liave succeeded in coming to an agree
ment , they have drawn wrong conclu
sions from the evidence , and the in
jured party is compelled to incur the
xpense and delay of asking the courts
to order a new trial.
The judge , seeing the bewilderment
of the jury , occasionally indicates what
the verdict ought to be , but most judges
are very reluctant to do this , lest they
be charged with usurping functions ,
reserved for the twelve."good men and
irue. " But , if decisions of juries are to
be , in reality , the decision of the judge ,
or , if they are to be revised , when erron
eous , by an appeal to a higher court ,
what object can there be in putting liti
gants to the trouble , delay and expense
of a jury trial ?
The law proclaims its distrust of
juries by denying them the right be
longing to every other judicial body
of deciding their differences by a major
ity , and by exacting a unanimous decis
ion. In effect , it says , that the verdict
of a jury , unlearned in the law , must
be valueless , unless all twelve jurors
agree , while the decision of a majority
of judges , who are trained lawyers , is
sufficient to determine the most compli
cated questions that reach the courts.
Verdict Should be Result of Reason.
The assertion , so often heard , that
jurors are better fitted than judges , to
decide all matters of fact , is not correct.
A verdict is supposed to be the result of
reasoning. The power to reason accur
ately is not possessed in a higher degree
by farmers , by merchants , or by store
keepers , than by judges , who are
usually men of ability and learning ,
whose previous education and training
peculiarly fits them for the task. There
may be some cases , in which , owing to
rules of trade , or other unusual circum
stances , more within the knowledge of
the laymen than lawyers , the decision
of the former would be , of the two , the
more correct. But , what is needed , in
these cases , is not twelve men utterly
ignorant of the technical questions be
fore the court , but one skilled assessor ,
to aid the judges. Even if a jury be
considered essential in such a case , as
the one described , that is not a valid
argument in favor of trial by jury , in
all cases.
Jurors are not required merely to de
cide the disputed facts ; they are requir
ed to decide them according to the law
and the evidence. It is an error to sup
pose , that all that is necessary , in order
to do this , is to listen to the testimony ,
and to receive the propositions of law
from the court , with such assistance , as
may be derived from the argument of
the lawyers , who , in this state , ( New
York ) ore usually permitted to tell the
jury anything they choose , whether it
is in the evidence or not. When the
jurors have listened to the speeches of
counsel , and the charge of the judge ,
they have only commenced their work ;
their most difficult duties are yet to be
performed. They are now expected to
weigh all the testimony , which they
have heard , and thoroughly analyze it.
To do so , properly , and profitably , con
flicting testimony must be reconciled ,
where reconcilement is possible , and
where it is impossible , a wise discrimi
nation must be exercised , in selecting
from this testimony , whatever seems
most worthy of credence.
Necessity of-Mental Training.
From the mass of evidence often
from a maze of contradictions the
facts which establish , or most strongly
tend to establish , the truth must be
extracted ; and to accomplish this suc
cessfully , there ought to be a clear un
derstanding of the points at issue. If
these various steps are executed in a
thorough manner , a demand is made
upon the reasoning faculties to a greater
degree than the intellect of the average
man is accustomed to ; and while it may
not absolutely necessitate mental train
ing and discipline in similar work , yet ,
such training will be of great assistance ,
in arriving at correct conclusions. It is
obvious that the man who has had a
wide experience of trials in court ; who ,
as a part of his profession , has been
compelled to listen to the testimony of
witnesses , and to carefully consider , not
only their testimony , but their demea
nor , while on the witness stand ; whose
mind , both by education and experience ,
has become trained to logical processes
of thought , and to the ready detection
of fallacies in the arguments that are
addressed to him , upon the testimony , is
far better able to arrive at an accurate
determination of the issues involved ,
than is the man who has no such exper
ience , and no such training.
But the jurors duties are not yet con
cluded. When he has weighed and
sifted the evidence respecting the truth
of the matters of fact involved , a func
tion of paramount importance and
serious difficulty remains to be exercised.
He must now apply the law , as given
him by the judge , to the facts. To do
this , intelligently , often requires much
clear-thinking and a more-than-ordinary
exercise of the reasoning faculties , for
the instructions of the court are often
numerous , as well as lengthy ; some of
them , in addition , are likely to involve
more than one proposition. Moreover ,
however lucid the judge's charge may
be , it is very difficult for minds , unfami
liar with legal principles , to apply the
law to facts. In a vast number of in
stances , instructions are not mere direc
tions to the jury , that if they find the
facts to be so and so , to give a verdict
