WHY JURIES WON'T CONVICT

Waikato Independent, Volume XXIV, Issue 3224, 27 May 1924, Page 3

WHY JURIES WON'T CONVICT

Vlic jury has long 1 been a puzzle to j the public, amt at times no small con- J undrum to counsel. In so many cases it has been impossible to predict the ver- j diet, especially, of course, when things are on the border line. Yet Lord Hals- , bury, shrewdest of men, used to sav that'in his opinion juries were more . generally right than judges. j As a rule juries mean to .do what is : right. In fact, the desire to be just often leads them to return unjust ver- j diets. Their natural sense of .justice proves to be neither law nor equity. And vet another predisposing- cause may be the attitude of judge or conn- j sol, or both. j ■Wrong verdicts are often due to par- ' tisan judges. Defendant’s counsel immediately gets the sympathy of a jury if the judge proves irritable or prejudic- , ed. There is a proverb that the common law of England resides in the bosom of every judge; it is sometimes thought preferable that it should' oc- I eupy premises higher up. j j Jockeying. | j Then, again, the demeanour of prose- ( cuting counsel frequently secures an acquittal when a conviction would have | been just. Anything like a. gratuitous | and gross attack oii a blameless person, i i is apt to recoil. I remember a breach of promise case where a most scandal- j i ous and unfounded attack on a fair , plaintiff speedily produced an assess- i ment of her damages at £IOOO. | Juries, too, do not like being “joc- | keyed.” They prefer to be dealt with, .temperately and in a business-like. way. A certain eloquen.ee will sometimes suecoed with them-—I. hayo known them, when so influenced, anxious "to bring in , their verdict after hearing the pros'eeu-t-ion 'only—blit, as a rule, flattery and such, arguments as are implied in cm- ;

pha.sisiiig that they are “twelve Englishmen ’ Englishwomen, too —-are resented'. If counsel show that tliey : think jiffies fools, the compliment is sometimes- returned in the venliict. ' Nor do- they like cross-examination of a witness as to his unhappy past. Many a time has the foreman risen and asked the judge if it had anything to do with the case. The jury usually make a mental'note of it in favour of the witness or the: defendant.- . Local Colour.

Then, again, local causes have often inspired a,<perver.se verdict. The prosecution of a local man, favourably known to . all of them, is often unsuccessful. This indulgence is extended at. times to counsel of local origin, when they are well known and general favourites. There was a case at a certain •quarter sessions at which such a type of counsel appeared for the defence and when the jury was asked whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty, the answer was: “We finds for Monster Garge, sir”; and on being further pressed: “We can’t goo fur wrong if us finds for Measter Garge.”

If crime is rare and not'serious, they are slow to convict. If, on the other hand, it has become frequent- and grave —such as a crop of burglaries and highway robberies —the juries are quick to return a. verdict of guilty; Political or religious prejudices not infrequently carried weight with juries. The well-known case when Parnell was acquitted at Dublin is said bv Lord Morlev to have been, due to the corrupt connivance of the jury.

There is an old rule for counsel to follow when they feel they are makingno impression on the strong man of the jury. “Try it on the weakest.” When trumps are out, a poor card may win the trick.