PSYCHOLOGY OF JURY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLII, Issue 9594, 31 August 1921, Page 3

PSYCHOLOGY OF JURY.

♦ SIR E. MARSHALL-HALL'S STORIES. The famous advocate at the criminal Bar, Sir Edvvard Marshall-Hall, K.C.j has contributed a remarkable article to the "Strand Magazine" on "The Psychology of the Jury." "Juries," he says, "are very human; and they are apt to take notice of many things which do not always attract much attention." He goes on to tell some amusing stories of some cases m which he was concerned. He appeared for the plaintiff m a breach of promies case, and everybody, including his opponent, thought that there should be a verdict for the plaintiff. The judge's Bumming up also left no loophole for any other verdict, but, to 'everybody's astonishment, the jury came back with a verdict for the defendant. Says Sir Edward: Some weeks after this I happened to 'be playing golf not far from London, and, going into the club house, where I was a guest, to luxjch, I noticed three or four men sitting at a table whose faces were familiar to me. As I passed I heard my name mentioned, and, turning /round, I at once recognised one of the party as a juryman m the case I have referred to. My curiosity being aroused, I stopped for a moment and asked (how they found the verdcit that they did. He laughed, and gave this most amusing explanation: "Well," said he, "the judge who tried the case had a reputation for forming strong views which were not always upheld by the Court of Appeal, and so, when the jury retired to the jury room to consider their verdict, one of them at once said, ' Well, it is quite evident which way the judge is. Now, we all know that it is six to four that the judge is wrong: why go against the odds ? Let's find for. the defendant.'" And they did. Sir Edward tells a story about another jury: In the very early days of my career at the Bar I was engaged as junior m the defence of a woman charged for murder of a new-born child. The real question to be decided by the jury was a medical one as to cause of death, and on this , some very strong evidence was given by a well-known surgeon who was a witness for the Treasury. If his evidence was accepted a hostile verdict of the 'jury was almost inevitable, m spite of the very strongest sympathy which existed i (ov- the unfortunate woman. The case was tried before one of the I most humane judges who ever adorned the English Bench, and the humanity of his summing up had a great deal, no doubt, to do with the verdict of acquittal which my leader, by his brilliant speech, so , triumphantly secured. I happened to know the foreman of the jury well, and, his professional vocation being that of an undertaker, I did not think he was likely to be moved by sentiment, so I asked him one day soon after the trial how he pot over the evidence of the medical man I referred to. "Oh!" said he, "that was the man who read the ' Sporting Times ' m court whilst the case was going on, and I would not believe a man on his oath who would read a paper like that." Sir Edward doubts if the public know how important it is sometimes that witnesses should "dress the part." He once insisted that a witness should leave his jewellery behind before he went into the witness-box, for he felt that its display "created a presumption m favour of disbelief." ,