The writer has seen more than one judge openly
striving to influence a jury to convict or to acquit a
prisoner at the dictation of such a boss, who, not content to
issue his commands from behind the arras, came to the
courtroom and ascended the bench to see that they were obeyed.
Usually the jury indignantly resented such interference and
administered a well-merited rebuke by acting directly contrary
to the clearly indicated wishes of the judge.
But while admitting its theoretic value as a bulwark of
liberty, the modern assailant of the jury brushes the
consideration aside by asserting that the system has "broken
down" and "degenerated into a farce."
Let us now see how much of a farce it is. If four times out
of five a judge rendered decisions that met with general
approval, he would probably be accounted a highly satisfactory
judge. Now, out of every one hundred indicted prisoners
brought to the bar for trial, probably fifteen ought to be
acquitted if prosecuted impartially and in accordance with the
strict rules of evidence.
Pages:
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80