No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
1 Leighton, Judge K. E., “How About The Jury?,” 8 Jour. Amer. Jud. Soc. 246 (1924)Google Scholar.
2 “A Program for the Trial of Jury Trial,” 12 Jour. Amer. Jud. Soc. 166 (1929)Google Scholar.
3 A Treatise on the Laws and Customs of England, Bk. II, c. 17. See also The King v. Edmonds (1821), 4 B. and Ald. 471, 490, 106 Reprint 1009, holding that “a knowledge of certain facts, and an opinion that those facts constitute a crime, are certainly no grounds of challenge.”
4 Burns v. U. S. (C.C.A. Okla. 1922), 279 F. 982, 987. Certiorari denied, 257 U. S. 638. See also Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Berg (C.C.A. Pa. 1921), 274 F. 534. Certiorari denied (1921), 257 U.S. 638.
5 Winstrand v. The People (1904), 213 III. 72.
6 47 Amer. Law Rev. 149 (1913)Google Scholar.
7 Commentaries, Bk. III, p. 358.
8 The modern jury box was suggested by Bentham. See Art of Packing Juries, p. 238. Cf. Benaway v. Coyne (Wis. 1851), 3 Pinn. 196, where the common law was held to authorize the clerk to use slips of two colors, and to hold them in one hand as he drew them out with the other.
9 Special jurors, who received a guinea per case, were spoken of as “being concerned in the Guinea trade.” Bentham, op. cit., p. 33.
10 Commentaries, Introduction, p. 8.
11 New York provides that no one who has registered to vote shall be required to serve until all of the eligible non-voters have served. Judiciary Law, ss. 597-615. Opinion may differ as to whether this shows a regard for the citizen who goes to the polls on election day, or the extent to which jury service has fallen in the public eye. Other jurisdictions, through the use of registered voters' lists as the source of names for jury service, reverse the New York practice.
12 Compare Louisiana, Laws, 1924, no. 19, s. 1 (no woman shall be drawn unless she files a declaration of desire); Wisconsin, Laws, 1921, c. 529 (no woman may be required to serve if she asks exemption when first called); Laws of England, Supplement (1929), s. 560 (the court “may …. grant exemption by reason of the nature of the evidence to be given or of the issues to be tried,” or he may order that the jury be composed of men or women only). Even where the law places men and women on the same footing, it is not always true that the selecting officers do the same, with the result that relatively few women actually serve. See Sheridan, Elizabeth M., “Women and Jury Service,” 11 A.B.A. Jour. 792–797 (1925)Google Scholar.
13 The law often provides that this list shall include the names of all who possess the necessary legal qualifications. Needless to say, this requirement is construed by the courts to be directory only, so that the incompleteness of the list does not invalidate it.
14 See below, note 26.
15 Judicial Council of Kansas, First Report (1927), p. 18 Google Scholar.
16 Judicial Council of Kansas, First Report (1927), pp. 18–19 Google Scholar.
17 Ibid., p. 18.
18 Second Report (1928), p. 8 Google Scholar.
19 The writer is indebted to Justice Oscar M. Fritz of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, formerly presiding judge of the Circuit Court of Milwaukee, for this and other information.
20 See above, note 12. About 90 per cent of the women candidates claim exemption.
21 The writer is indebted to Judge Walter I. Dawkins of the Baltimore Supreme Bench for much valuable material on the Baltimore system.
22 Illinois Crime Survey (1929), p. 230 Google Scholar.
23 Ibid., p. 230.
24 Ibid., pp. 230, 240.
25 See Callender, , The Selection of Jurors (1924), p. 44ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. the New York practice, ibid., p. 53.
26 A jury wheel is merely a box so constructed that by turning it the slips are thoroughly mixed but the names thereon wholly concealed. Many jurisdictions use a “jury box” rather than a wheel. The distinction is unimportant, the sole function of either being to secure a fortuitous drawing.
27 And, of course, it is an additional source of revenue to the sheriff, who is generally paid by fees.
28 Op. cit., p. 237.
29 This court uses the ordinary post, registered mail being resorted to only when the juror ignores the first summons. The writer is indebted to Chief Justice Homer G. Powell for this and other information regarding the Cleveland courts.
30 Public Laws, 1925, c. 98, p. 111 Google Scholar; Comp. Stat., s. 918.
31 Contrary to the common belief, there is nothing either new or startling in this attitude. See Pollock, and Maitland, , The History of English Law, II, p. 629 Google Scholar.
32 Over 8 per cent of those summoned in 1927 in Cook county did not appear. Illinois Crime Survey (1929), p. 232 Google Scholar. Such a condition is not peculiar to Chicago or the United States. See Report of the Departmental Committee on the Law and Practice of Juries (1913), I, pp. 27–8Google Scholar, published in British Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons, XXX.
33 Many judges feel that when a juror serves for a longer period he is likely to become acquainted with attorneys and parties in such a manner as to form likes and dislikes which may impair his efficiency as an impartial juror.
34 This is generally done by court rule rather than by statute. Milwaukee has adopted both the two-week period of service and the six-year exemption without handicapping the work of the jury commission in the least.
35 This is the standard method. Others are discussed below.
36 See Illinois Crime Survey (1929), p. 235 Google Scholar; Kavanagh, , The Criminal and His Allies (1928), p. 211 Google Scholar; State v. Welch (1926), 121 Kan. 369, 374-5.
37 Recommendations of the Board of Senior Circuit Judges, 1923 and 1924, published in 8 Jour. Amer. Jud. Soc. 92, and in 10 Amer. Bar. Assoc. Jour. 875.
38 First Report (1927), pp. 15–16 Google Scholar; Second Report (1928), p. 7 Google Scholar. Even the trial court judges of the state objected to the adoption of such a rule, and the council thereupon concluded that “perhaps if in each judicial district a procedure could be worked out that was adaptable to the peculiar conditions there existing, .… it would be better for that to be done than for any of the suggested rules to be promulgated.”
39 See below, note 41.
40 In Illinois, jurors must be passed upon and accepted in panels of four. Revised Statutes (1927), c. 78, s. 21.
41 The term “talesman” is often used incorrectly to designate any person called for jury service. Throughout this article it is used in the more restricted sense of a person summoned to fill a deficiency in a particular jury.
42 South Carolina, Code, 1922, I, p. 215 Google Scholar; Iowa, Code, 1924, s. 10859 ff. Cf. State v. Dorsey (1915), 138 La. 410. Iowa allows the same names to be used over and over, which is a poor practice.
43 Hedger v. The People (1910), 144 Wis. 279, 298-9. In Milwaukee, talesmen are drawn from the regular jury wheel.
44 This was true also in England, where the struck jury was finally abolished by the Juries Act of 1922. The English special jury of today is one chosen in the regular manner from those possessing a certain amount of property.
45 100 Tenn. 573, 575 (1898).
46 Each party is given a list containing the twenty names and the striking is done in secret, the clerk striking additional names in case of duplication. Other courts conduct the striking in the same manner as peremptory challenges, the better practice being for the parties to strike alternately, the plaintiff first.
47 The size of juries in justices' courts has quite commonly been reduced to six.
48 This court uses the master calendar system of assigning cases, but of course the same method of a pooled jury panel could be fitted to the standard system. For a description of the master calendar, see the writer's article on “The Judicial Council Movement” in the November, 1928, issue of this Review.
49 Rule 25 (5), adopted August 1, 1928; continued as rule 24 (5), February 1, 1929. The master calendar, together with the pooled jury, increased the efficiency of the court nearly fifty per cent. Judicial Council of California, Second Report (1929), pp. 36–7Google Scholar. The Chicago Municipal Court feels that at least $30,000 a year is saved through its pooled jury reserve as against a separate panel for each judge.
50 The People v. Compton (1901), 132 Cal. 484; The People v. Wong Bin (1903), 139 Cal. 60.
51 Laws, 190E, p. 680.
52 “There is but one criminal court of Cook county. All the jurors properly drawn and summoned …. are eligible for service in any branch of the court …., and may be transferred from one branch to another as suits the convenience of the various branches of that court.” Winstrand v. The People (1904), 213 Ill. 72, 77.
53 See 35 Corpus Juris 291, which states unqualifiedly that “it is error to transfer jurors from another court.” It appears, however, that there is little authority for this statement.
54 See especially the Second Report (1929) of the California council and the Second Report (1928) of the Rhode Island council. The latter devotes about one-half of its entire report to jury trial.
55 Second Report (1929), p. 95 Google Scholar.
56 Senate bill 84, as introduced. The bill passed, but the provision mentioned was dropped.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.