Show J JURIES U F I 1 E S till alt ali by jury has been called I 1 a loyal biyal benefit conferred upon the people s it has from the earliest times time been considered the great bul wark mark of civil and political ilbe libe liberty arty this klas right was a fundamental article of magna charta no man maia was to be arrested imprisoned banished deprived of life etc except by the judgment of hla his peers or tile the uv liw of tile the land which judgment of 1 h is S pe peers d r awas was trial bya bys by a ju judythe jury rythe the peers peels af 0 the accused that is men drahei jf the same country and of like conditions and equality in the tate state with tho the accused the c common the trial of all crimes to take place in the county where the crimes ware were wore committed and evert event required that the jury should come from the same vicinage these two requirements have been statutorily modified still the idea n that a jury shall be composed decomposed of a mans mana mans neighbors equals fellow citizens of the community a fair representation of the citizen ST of bf the T A district r ath gire tire e early settlers of the colonies colon tes fes b ro u gha with alth them jiam jiom weste western rn fo u 1 wl i il method ethod of tia trial triai 1 by oadry af pf 0 f their peers peer as their un birthright aright and aud a n d I 1 inheritance ble bie lev lei aw i the tha lul of I 1 mir nir liberties dr tx athe rhe ehe uses of a jury are to insure justice lustica and to apt as a barrier to the accused equally from the tyranny and vindictiveness of the rulers the judiciary included and h nd of the people in order that the accused have haive every reasonable chance of justice and not be lightly condemned unanimity in the petit jury has been the rule from the earliest times both in this country and in england although in late years efforts have been made with a view to the obtaining of a law providing that in certain cases the agreement of a majority or two thirds of a jury shall be sufficient to a verdict it is also aiso the rule for the jury to be the judges of the fact or the evidence anu and the judge or of the law in civil cases it ik is ii almost if not quite the universal rule for the judge to determine what is law in the case but in criminal cases particularly ticul arly this thib rule is not universal the jury sometimes not leaving the determination of the law altogether to the judge but acting upon their own judgment as to the law as well as the facts or evidence there is a fair show of reason for this As a rule where the law jaw is plain and definite or the judges judged construction is manifestly fair and evidently reasonable the rule is good enough that his statement of the tho law jaw should be accepted by the jury but where the judge is strongly prejudiced and hw his construction Is indubitably strained there being no plain law in the case it does not seem so reasonable that the jury should implicitly and entirely accept his statement of the law because both good lawyers and good judges will differ upon construction of law and consequently in such cases there there is good reason for doubt which fact the jury juny may be expected to take cognizance of and permit to affect their verdict besides the jury may be often as good judges of the intent of the law as the judge s A judge may dictate to a jury to render such and such a verdict but the thie jury are not bound to accept ills his dictation in n that regard an english writer says there the cannot be a greater fallacy than to suppose that a jury is I 1 s bound by the private views of the judge in a trial for murder or indeed for any other othen of feuce the judge it i in fact the servant of the jury to explain and sum up tle the tee evidence uni und give his views of the law of f the case but most assuredly the jury are not bound by that yiew view or by anything save their oath which is to give a true ver vers according to the evidence sir Matt matthew matthiew liew llew hale says celt clit it would be a most u unhappy i tase caso for the judge Illin himself seir seif if the fato late depended apon his hs unhappy also for th the e prisoner lri iri for if the Judges opinion must rule the verdict the trial by would be useless blackstone Blacks tone tono says As all judges enjoy the highest office in tile tiie state their decisions in spite of their own integrity will have frequently an involuntary bian blan towards those of their own rank and it Is not to be expected from human nature that the few should be always attentive to the interests of the many the judge la Is all powerful in his court in some things but not in all incourt pincourt in court the judge mu blu t be and in pd ed he may boa good just honorable judge or he may be the contrary he may be eminently I 1 impartial mp artial and fair or he may be eminently unfair prejudiced partial but partial or impartial fair or unfair just or unjust prejudiced or unprejudiced courteous or discourteous suave or abusive he must be honored on the bench he may be most unjust ha may be blindly prejudiced he may be a m most ost u unfit n nit fit man to wear the ermine he may be a greater rascal than the criminal whom he condemns still the j judge must be honored in court and his rulings and decisions must be respected the primary and proper object of a jury abury is justice the primary and proper intent of the law is justice T the he essence of crime is the intent these things the jury july should keep in their minds the court decides what evidence is admissible but the jury decide upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value of their evidence the judge is the sole judge of the nature be admitted and the jury are the sole judges of ditsworth its worth when admitted thus both judge and jury are omnipotent but the omni of the one does not of right infringe upon that of the other in court the judge may do a great many things one of the great differences between the prerogatives roga tives of the judge and those of the jury esthe judge may say what he pleases and when he be pleases and to whom he pleases but the jury may not he is the sole judge of who may speak and what they may inay say bay in many respects the iury fury have no right to speak in court only on his pr press ass or implied A judge can talk to a jury without their permission but they cannot to him the judge may not only address a jury on his option but in any manner he pleases leases he may compliment or he E may ma upbraid them he may treat them respectfully or he may treat them thom disrespectfully he may be courteous to thomm thom or he may be discourteous to them he may positively abuse them abuse them in the most outrageous manner with words and the jury areas helpless as the tile prisoner at the bar they must be dumb under the infliction they may be justly indignant at the judge they may deel reel utter contempt for him inwardly but they must not give expression to their contempt in words nor unguardedly in act before an abusive judge the greatest effort of tile the jury is likely to be to hold their tongues and bottle up their indignation and contempt but that they must do while they are in court dumb they must keep unless he asks them a question or manifestly desires or allows them to speak speake they may keep their ears wide open but they must keep their mouths shut while he may be insulting or abusing them they cannot be stern with him as he may be with them they cannot lecture him as he may them they cannot cannoa dictate to him as ho he may to them they cannot abuse him a he may them they cannot say anything which ho he may consider disrespectful or insulting or gir impertinent to him or 0 r hardly irrelevant if he is a testy t judge all this because of his hib Is supreme power in the matter t or of contempt both as to construction and punishment for what he may consider an offense offence ence to him in court 1 I he jury can only talk to the judge when he allows them and an fn ill such manner as he may please to permit but though sub su jeci act to the judge inmany things tho the jury a are re not the slaves of the judge they are free citizens as he p 3 a constitutional and legal part of the court as ho he is in seme beme things even overl in court they are as hn trammelled A as independent as ae as a optional as he be isa is and as authoritative and supreme in their decisions as he is jury men have no cause to be afraid oi of the judge some things which he be says they may ignore they may virtual virtually y defy him in regard to some of their duties in court there is one grand thing wherein the he jury are all powerful and the judge is as weak as water it is the supreme prerogative of the jury to return such buch verdict as in their judgment is right irmay it may displease the judge it may anger him to a degree and he may vent his anger and spleen ou on th the jury ejury he may storm at insult and abuse them but he cannot compel them to render a verdict to please to lo render any verdict at all ho he cannot compel them to agree on any verdict verdie tj though he may take extraordinary tra unreasonable and cruel means to do it in the the matter of returning a verdict the jury have all power if they know it an and d it 1 is their right and duty to know it in this the jury are a check upon the possible injustice and tyranny of the judge upon the encroachments encroach ments and u usurpations kurpa eions of the judicial power the J jury ury baynot may not heed the judges wishes as to a verdict they may treat them us ns nothing they may even actually not verbally scorn his threats if he be indulges in any and defy his power they may re regard en ard his private views as no more than any other mans but they must not tell him so it is their duty to bring in a ver diet in accordance with the I 1 law a w and the evidence the spirit and intent of the law and the real value of the evidence and in the interest of justice so far as the plain law jaw will allow where there is a doubt it la Is right light to give justice the benefit of the doubt and sometimes mercy but justice mainly and especially pec lally ally when that would favor the accused notwithstanding any evidently unfair judicial construction out ot court and especially out of court time the judge is no more than any other man mail he be is as weak and insignificant as any other citizen he can cau be met on his bis merits and respected or held in contempt as he may deserve he can be held in honor for his upright course or he can be held in dishonor for his injustice he can be remembered for good or for evil by j jurors brors witnesses and the general public for his conduct in court as well as in private life according as it may private ave been worthy or unworthy J lust us t or unjust impartial or one side sided d prejudiced or u unprejudiced noted for fair constructions rulings and decisions or for unfair ones in short a judge is but a hansome times a poor specimen of a man in this country especially there are judges judge s not a few who are not wort worthy hy of any more respect or honor than that which the law law enforces in court nor indeed of that B but ut that they must have |