THE ARBUCKLE CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18456, 18 January 1922, Page 5

THE ARBUCKLE CASE

JURY FINALLY SELECTED. ONE WOMAN INCLUDED. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright, SAN FRANCISCO, January 16. (Received Jan. 17, at 11.15 p.m.) The Arbuckle* jury haa been finally sworn in. It consists of, 11 men and one woman, with one man and one woman as “alternates.” These “alternates” will be called upon in the event of any of the jurors becoming ill. —A. and N.Z. Cable. The American jury system is founded largely upon British methods and practice, but appears to differ mainly in tho freedom conceded to both the prosecution and defence to hold a sort of inquisition over the prospective jurymen. The delay in swearing the jury for the first trial of Arbuokle. was comparatively slight. Sometimes in the States it takes weeks, even months, to get the dozen true and unbiassed men into the box. Every juryman called may bo examined by the parties a® to his interest in the case, his preconceived ideas or convictions, his religious beliefs, and on all points wherein there may be a suggestion of bias. The United States jury lists are made up of all registered voters, both mgn and women. Viscount Bryce, in his book, “Modern Democracies,” has on interesting chapter on the' defects of criminal justice in the United States. Ho says: “Though the administration of civil justice leaves much to b© desired, that of criminal justice is far worse. There are few States, perhaps only two or three outside New England—New Jersey is one—where it is either prompt or efficient. All through the rest of the country, south and west, trials are of inordinate length, and when the verdict has been given months or years may elapse before the sentence can be carried into effect. “Man* causes have combined to ■ produce this inefficiency.. One is the extreme length of trial®, especially the trials for murder. First of oil, there is the difficulty of getting a jury. In some States the jury lists are not fairly made up; but even where they are, the exercise of the right of challenging, oh the ground that the person summoned is prejudiced or lias already formed an opinion, is carried to extreme lengths. Sometimes hundred® of persons are rejected by on© aide or the other. There was a State prosecution in California a few years ago, in which more than two months were spent in challenges before a jury was at last empanelled. “Then there are the numerous intricacies of procedure, and the highly technical rules of evidence. Objections taken to the judge's rulings on points of evidence, or to the terms of his charge, .are reserved for subsequent argument before the Full Court, and it is often a year or more before the court deals with them.” ■■•