LEGAL MACHINE

Evening Post, Issue 23, 27 July 1936, Page 8

LEGAL MACHINE

AT WORK IN AMERICA

EMPANELLING OF JURORS

ENDLESS QUESTION

A friendly attorney guided me round the courts of San Francisco, says a writer in the Melbourne "Age." He was a discontented member of the profession, and spoke disparagingly of California's judicial system, and of some of the Judges. At the same time, he made few inquiries about methods prevailing in Australia, his particular desire apparently being to convince me that Californian methods were shockingly bad.

"That guy don't amount to much," he remarked solto voce, indicating a certain Judge. "He's naht so dumb, but he's for ever joshin' folks and wise-crackin". He joshes the plaintiff and the defendant, and' he joshes the witnesses and the attorneys, too. I gaht no time for him."

"Joshing" (he pronounced it "jarshing"), I take it to mean chaffing. I watched the "guy" in question for some time, and concluded that the attorney's estimate of him was right. So far from being "dumb," he seemed to me to be particularly shrewd. His joshing tactics were resorted to for the purpose of putting people off their guard or gaining their confidence, and I daresay were just as effective as the terrifying methods adopted by some Judges.

It was a pleasure, on the other hand, to hear my learned friend describe another Judge as a "vurry vurry fine man." (He dwelt lovingly on the vowel sounds.) One of the objects of his admiration, he informed me, had been re-elected to the Bench by popular vote six or seven times. Later, he found an opportunity of introducing me to this Judge, from a short conversation with whom it seemed probable that he really was a "vurry fine man." Divesting my mind of current rumours concerning the administration of justice in the United States, I noticed little to differentiate the proceedings that I witnessed from those in British or Australian courts. Admittedly, my opportunity of forming an opinion was limited. NOT IN EVIDENCE. So much has been said and written about lack of decorum and dignity in the conduct of proceedings in Ameri-I can courts, that I was almost dis-1 appointed at seeing no evidence of it. There would have been something to remember and to chronicle if Judges attorneys, witnesses, or jurymen had indulged in the pranks portrayed by the cinema. But, no. So far as I observed, the course of justice ran as smoothly as in the most respectable cities of the old world. I had one great disappointment in San Francisco. Naturally, I wanted to be present while a criminal case was being tried. Here' was a land .where crooks and gangsters were by no means unheard of. It would be wonderful to see how they fared in court ■ 'Go to the great Hall of Justice" my dejected attorney told me. "You'll hear all you want there!" He added bitingly: "Hall of Justice! When you come away from it, you'll say that they should have called it 'The -iJen of Iniquity.'!" «Z helfV°;£'T- ed a scathing description of trafficking done in bail bonds and of other wicked practices Entering this fearful abode (a vast building vvith a raised platform at one end.), I witnessed a novel proceeding The courtroom (very different in appearance from a British court) was thronged with people, the primal actors-Judge, attornies, etc.-being a one end. A big trial for a : serious %obbery was about to begin. But what curious thing was happening? Who> * Sphered, was the district attorney, was peppering somL T e W^ , queStion^ =• Whe n g h^ad finished with his victim, a second perback, looking intensely bored It soon became clear that the persons bemg interrogated were not w?tS^h- bUt pros?ective jurymen, Tnd that this proceeding was a preliminary inquiry to. ascertain if each and ever? man and woman on the jury, panel was fl t t0 try the case Qr w J as^is P^f. Ned by reason of bias, etc. .HIS ATTITUDE. A story is told of a juryman on the panel being questioned as above before the hearing of a murder case. "Do you know the accused?" asked the attorney. "No." . , "Did you know the man alleged to have been murdered?" "No." "Do you know any of the witnesses in the case?" "No." : "Been talking to any of them?" "No." -"Have you read about the case in the newspapers?" "No." "Formed any opinion about the merits?" ]'No." "Are you opposed to capital punishment?" "I'm not opposed to it in this ca§e!" said the juryman, with emphasis. I have never heard whether the Judge, on hearing the last answer, invited the speaker to reconcile jt with his previous answers, or whether he excused hiiy from service on the jury. For fully an hour I listened to this catechism. Once only the Judge intervened, on hearing a question answered inia certain way. "You are excused," he said. Tired, ultimately, of waiting for the trial to begin, I withdrew until the following day, when s re-entered the Court. Good gracious! They were still at it. And on the day afterwards as well! My last chance was gone, because my train was due to leave and thus the interminable questioning of the attornies left me with no notion of a criminal trial in America, except such as can be gleaned from seeing a picture show. One marvels how this strange and lengthy system of interrogation can be endured by so practical a people. Can so many million Americans be wrong? Or is it we who are wrong in letting all sorts of people enter the' jury box without a solitary question to test their fitness for adjudicating? METHOD GOES TOO FAR. I respectfuly suggest that there is something to be said for the American system, but that it goes too far; and that a midway course should be adopted by asking the sworn twelve "en masse" when they enter the box: "Does any of you know of any reason why you should not try' this case on account of bias or any other disqualifying cause?"

Travelling by train from San Francisco to Los Angeles, I "got acquainted" with a Judge of the Supreme Court of the latter city. I asked him whether he approved of women serving on juries.

"Yes," he said. "The system has been in force in this State for about three years, and it is functioning satisfactorily. The women just go about their jury work in the way.-that seems

natural to them. Sometimes they bring their knitting into the jury box, but they listen attentively to the evidence.

"Do you think that their presence on the jury leads to better verdicts?"

"I do." He smiled reflectively. "I remember one case, however, in which they went badly off the track. A jury consisting mainly of women acquitted a man of a revolting crime, and informed me that it was 'incredible to them that a man could behave in so shocking a manner!'"

On two other occasions I have sought a judicial opinion in regard to woman jurors.

An English County Court Judge told me that he was informed that they were proving satisfactory in criminal icases. (In England women have been capable of serving on juries since 19190 I A VICTORIAN VIEW. Finally, I questioned a Victorian Judge, since deceased. I blush to record his answer. "Why," I asked, "should we not have ■ mixed juries in Australia? England has I them. The United States have them. Why should one half of the community be eligible for jury service, and the other half " To my dismay, the Judge shook his head. With a reproachful look, and I placing his hand at the'side of his I mouth. "Keep them in their place!" he said, in a low voice, full .of meaning. Keep them in their place? Was his Honour suffering from an early Victorian complex? Is it possible that he had been having trouble in the home? What did he suppose women's place to be? According to modern notions, their place was practically everywhere! Has not that very learned and experienced Judge, Sir Ernest Wild. Recorder of the Old Bailey, stated that, after many years of experience of juries, he wish- j ed to pay the highest tribute to the way women performed their work?

I, for one, your Honour, wish to dissociate myself from your idea of woman's proper place, and from your estimate of her right—or duty, whichever it may be —in this regard, and shall, with due respect, think of you henceforth as adopting the attitude of Tennyson's Northern Farmer—

Woman was made for man. And for the cood and increase of the world,