AMERICAN ABUSE OF THE JURY SYSTEM.

Evening Post, Volume L, Issue 125, 23 November 1895, Page 1 (Supplement)

AMERICAN ABUSE OF THE JURY SYSTEM.

We were told by cable a few days ago of the conviction of William H. T. Durrant, assistant librarian of the Emmanuel Baptist Church, San Francisco, for tbo outrage and murder of a female teacher named Blanche Lamout, whose body was concealed on the school premises. A singular incident of Durrant's trial, from the colonial point of view, was the extreme difficulty that was experienced in securing a jury. Twenty-one days were occupied in this work alone. The selection of two jurymen on one day was chronicled as a memorable episode in the proceedings. In all there were 1250 names drawn from the list of 3600 citizens subject to jury duty. Added to this 1250 there were two special venires drawn from the body of the county of 75 citizens each. Altogether 500 persons were examined touching their competency and qualification to act. The prosecution exhausted only four of the ten peremptory challenges permitted, and the counsel for the defence used only 1 1 of their 20 peremptory challenges Thus 15 were excused peremptorily and 482 for cause and 12 were chosen. The remaining 909 found plausible excuses from jury duty upon application to the court, and escaped the interrogatories of the attorneys as to their condition of mind, their prejudice or bias, their knowledge of the facts, their opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, their scruples as to the infliction of of the death penalty, and their objections to sending a fellow-man to his death on circumstantial evidence. These 1003 citizens presented all manners of excuses. Some were lame, others were ill. Many had sickness in their families. A great many would have suffered loss in a business way. There were quite a number of deaf men, who came in bunches of half-a-dozen at a time. Of the 497 who were excused, after being compelled to undergo examination as to competency, a large proportion had formed opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, which they declared would require strong evidence to remove. The number who were conscientiously opposed to capital punishment or who objected to circumstantial evidence was very large.