Certainly it is not from want of intelligence. There can be no question as to the capability5 of the ordinary juryman to perform his duties. The independent American is singularly adapted to just this form of investigation6. If the English be "a nation of shopkeepers," we are a nation of natural cross-examiners. You will find fully7 as good verbal fencing in a New England corner grocery store about mail time as you will in most courts of justice. But the very innate8 capacity of the native American to per[Pg 206]ceive the truth and get to the bottom of things, leads him to believe that he knows equally well, if not better than the judge, what ought to be done about it and what punishment, if any, should be inflicted9 upon the defendant10 under the circumstances. It is not that our jurors are incapable11 or uninterested, but, paradoxical as it may seem, that they are too capable and too interested. They want to be not only jurors, but district attorney, counsel for the defendant, expert witness, and judge into the bargain.
Your shopkeeper in England makes a less intelligent, but a far more satisfactory juror. There they will empanel a jury in a few moments in a capital case, and so deeply implanted in the bosom12 of each juryman is a respect for the law as such and an inherited reverence13 for the judiciary, which its uniformly high character has done so much to foster, that, provided the facts are sufficiently15 established, the sex of the defendant, the condition of his or her family, the character of the motive16 for the act, will not be the subject of discussion or even of consideration in determining the verdict. It is enough that they are sworn to decide the facts and the facts alone. They are told by the judge what evidence they may consider, and what facts they may not consider, and did they not obey his instructions they would receive the severe censure17 of the public and the press.
There is an historical reason for this. In 1666, when a jury found a verdict of manslaughter after having been instructed that the evidence showed that it was murder, Kelyng, C.J., promptly18 fined them five pounds apiece. On petition, he reduced it to forty shillings, "which they all paid." In 1667 he fined eleven of the grand jury twenty pounds apiece for re[Pg 207]fusing to indict19 for murder. The judges of the King's Bench said he was quite right, adding, "and where a petty juror, contrary to directions of the court, will find a murder manslaughter, ... yet the court will fine them" (King vs. Windham, 2 Keble, 180). For centuries it was the common practice to punish severely20 by imprisonment21, fine, and attainder juries who refused to convict on what appeared to the court to be sufficient evidence. Perhaps Throckmorton's case in 1554, when the jury acquitted22 the defendant of treason, is the most famous illustration of this. The court committed the jury to prison, eight being confined from April 17 to December 12, and on their discharge fined them, some sixty and some two hundred and twenty pounds apiece. The reasoning under the circumstances was obvious. If a jury found a man guilty improperly25, he could be pardoned, but "if, having pregnant evidence, nevertheless, the twelve do acquit23 the malefactor26, which they will do sometime ... the prisoner escapeth...." It is refreshing27 to observe that even English juries "will do [this] sometime." All this naturally created, as it was designed to create, a tremendous regard for the judge and his instructions.
There is at the present time little of this wholesome28 regard for law in America. The jury realize that the judge's elevation29 to the bench is often a matter of politics alone, and sometimes have comparatively little respect for his character, learning, or ability. They frequently feel by no means confident that the punishment will fit the crime, and are anxious, so far as they can, to dispose of the case for themselves. For example, in one case where three defendants31 were found guilty of stealing in company[Pg 208] a single article of value, the jury rendered a verdict of grand larceny32 in the first degree against one, grand larceny in the second degree against another, and petty larceny against the third. They did this because of the varying ages of the defendants, but in so doing obviously violated their oaths and usurped33 the functions of the judge. Very likely "substantial justice" was accomplished34.
There are hundreds of jurors who, having in all honesty taken the oath to "a true verdict find," will, once in the jury-room, frankly35 turn to their fellows and exclaim: "Oh, let him go! He's only a kid. Give him another chance!" "Substantial justice," again at the expense of our regard for law.
As an example of what may occur, the case of Rosa di Pietro, tried for murder before the Recorder, in December, 1904, is illuminating36. The defendant was a young Italian woman of good repute charged with shooting and killing37 her brother-in-law, who, the evidence clearly showed, had endeavored to persuade her to yield to his desires. She claimed to have shot him in self-defence. Her story was so obviously a fabrication that no jury could have believed her, and must have found (if they had considered the matter at all) that she pursued her would-be seducer38 down the stairs and shot him in a dark hallway, as he was leaving the building. A "special" jury of perfectly39 intelligent men promptly acquitted her. The writer presumes that after this all the Italian residents will get their wives to do their killing for them.
In a well-known case the jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter, instead of murder, because one of their number had read that the prisoner had[Pg 209] been a "Rough Rider" in the Cuban campaign. After they had returned their verdict they learned that he had been nothing of the kind.
The action of the New York County jury in a criminal case is right as to the defendant's guilt24 or innocence41 about four times out of five, but less frequently as to the appropriate degree of crime.[36] The percentage of proper verdicts differs, of course, in different varieties of crime. In cases of common felony, such as larceny, burglary, rape42, robbery, arson43, forgery44, etc., it is usually high; in homicides and gambling45 much lower; and in commercial frauds and liquor-tax cases smaller still, the number of convictions being inconsiderable. Making due allowance for the unconscious prejudices, sympathies, and idiosyncrasies of mankind, we have still, as citizens, a right to demand a far higher degree of accuracy in the verdicts of our juries—to expect the murderer to be found guilty of murder and the thief to be stigmatized46 as a thief. What is the explanation for this?
The fundamental reason for the arbitrary character of the verdicts of our juries lies not in our lack of intelligence as a nation, but in our small regard for human life, our low standard of commercial honesty, our hypocrisy47 in legislation, our consequent lack of respect for law, and the general misapprehension that the function of the jury is to render "substantial justice"—a misapprehension fostered by public sentiment, the press, and even in some cases by the bench itself, to the complete abandonment of[Pg 210] the literal interpretation48 of the juror's oath of office.
The writer has heard judges from the bench congratulate juries upon having rendered a "merciful verdict"! They are popularly expected "to temper justice with mercy," "exercise a wise discretion," and "to be moved to magnanimity." But the jurors who satisfy their emotions at the expense of their honesty, and the judge who countenances49 the performance, are worse law-breakers than the defendant himself.
We carry upon our statute50 books laws which we have no intention of enforcing, and which, in our present state of development, are actually unenforceable. Even law-abiding, law-loving, and (ordinarily) conscientious51 jurors will become lawless when compelled to sit in a case of this character. Thus while the three judges of Special Sessions find guilty some sixty per cent of those brought before them for violations52 of various phases of the liquor-tax law, a conviction by a jury in the General Sessions is practically unheard of. The grand jury have now reached the point where they practically refuse to indict at all in liquor-tax cases.[37] Just as long as we have[Pg 211] hypocrisy in religion, in business, and in legislation, so long shall we have hypocrisy in our courts of justice.
Of course, as we live in an age when violence is found inconvenient53 and annoying, your jury naturally condemns54 by its verdict crimes of a violent character, and will make but short work of highwayman and thug. Burglars are unpopular both with the public and with the juror; and it needs no burst of rhetoric55 to induce a jury to find a verdict against a "firebug" or a "cadet." But once step into that class of cases, the subject of which is commercial fraud, and the jury look upon the prosecution56 with[Pg 212] averted57 eye. Just so long as dishonesty of one kind or another is openly countenanced58 in business, just so long it will be practically impossible, except under unusual conditions, to convict the fraudulent bankrupt or the retailer59 who has secured goods and credit upon false representations. Mayhap there is upon the jury some tradesman who has "padded" his own credit statement; some one who has placed a fictitious60 valuation on his stock, or has told alluring61 but unsubstantial stories as to his "orders on hand," "cash in bank," and "bills receivable." What chance under those circumstances of a conviction?
"The jury, passing on the prisoner's life,
May have in the sworn twelve a thief or two
Guiltier than him they try."
"Why," says a juror, "here they are trying to convict this fellow Einstein of what everybody does every day in the year. Rubbish! Am I a thief! I don't have any criminal intent. He was just tryin' to boost his assets a little. He's no criminal." And out he goes to the jury-room and persuades the other eleven that the defendant is no worse than everybody. Of course, everybody isn't a thief. The syllogism62 is irrefutable.
"I suppose you didn't believe that Mr. Einstein made those false statements?" says the writer, approaching him as he steps into the corridor. The juror pauses in lighting63 his cigar.
"Sure, he made 'em!" he remarks. "Of course he made 'em! But, H—l, he's no criminal!" This is an actual experience.
Our distaste for physical violence has had a rather paradoxical result so far as the jury is concerned,[Pg 213] for it appears to be coupled with a small (and what seems to be a decreasing) regard for human life. Verdicts of murder in the first degree are exceedingly rare, and it requires a crime of a peculiarly atrocious character to induce the jury to send the defendant to the electric chair. This is due in part to cowardice64 and in part to the misconception of their function already dwelt upon, since in almost all murder cases the jury regard themselves as fixing the penalty. Inasmuch as most persons who meet death from violence are themselves of violent character, the jury frequently seems to believe that the defendant is entitled to a certain amount of consideration for ridding the community of his victim, and this often finds joyful65 expression in a verdict of manslaughter.
Totally distinct, however, from this trifling66 with justice, whether it be wilful67 or voluntary, is the unconscious bias68 of each member of the human family due to race, religion, education, and character. Hence jurors are examined with an elaborate care and minuteness of investigation which in practice is often shown to be ridiculous. In fact certain maxims69 having almost the force of legal doctrines70 have grown up about the selection of a jury. A defendant's counsel will invariably challenge an Irishman if his client be a negro, and vice71 versa. This is likewise apt to be the case if the client be an Italian. Talesmen with wives and children are generally supposed to be more susceptible72 to arguments directed to their sympathies. Hebrews are presumed to make particularly undesirable73 jurors for the defence where the crime charged is one of violence or arson, and are likewise usually challenged when the defence[Pg 214] is self-defence. Old men are popularly supposed to make indulgent jurors, although the writer's own experience is to the contrary, and he has noticed that persons with long, drooping74 mustaches are invariably excused. Neither side as a rule cares for missionaries75 or persons engaged in philanthropic enterprises, since the prosecutor2 feels instinctively76 that their eleemosynary tendencies will extend to the prisoner, while the defence has a presentiment77 that they will lead him to favor the damaged complainant. Writers, editors, and publishers are generally excused by the defence as too intelligent, i.e., too prone78 to theoretic arguments as distinguished79 from a "broad view," which from the prisoner's standpoint means one including every sympathetic reason that can be suggested. Artists are distrusted by prosecutors as romantic and imaginative. Butchers, coffin-makers, sextons, grave-diggers, undertakers, and dealers80 in electrical supplies are invariably excused for obvious reasons by the defendant in homicide cases. Liquor dealers are believed to be prone to take a lenient81 view of the shortcomings of humanity in general, while persons of brisk, incisive82 manners naturally suggest heartlessness to the cowering83 defendant. The writer knows an assistant who will not try a case if there is a man with a pompadour on the jury, and neither prosecution nor defence cares for long-haired jurors of the "yarb doctor" variety, while the dapper little man with the "dickey" and red necktie is invariably excused by the defence unless the defendant be a woman.
The frivolous84 character of these rules needs no comment. Almost every lawyer and every prosecutor believes himself to be a past master in the study[Pg 215] of character from external evidence, and upon the most trivial and unnatural85 of pretexts86 will challenge a talesman so unfortunate as not to suit his fancy. Yet when all is done and when, after the most exhaustive examination and cross-examination of several hundred special talesmen, wrenched87 from their places of business or the bosoms88 of their families, twelve men have been finally selected and sworn, it is probable that they are in no respect superior to the first twelve who might have been chosen.
In murder cases each side may challenge peremptorily89 thirty talesmen, and numerous are the legal "jumps" over which they must successfully ride before they can qualify for service. Thus it is unusual in a homicide case to select a jury in less than two days, and in some instances it has taken two weeks. On the other hand, equally satisfactory juries have occasionally been selected in such cases in less than an hour.
The general futility90 of trying to secure a jury of particular capacity or intelligence, or one which will contain no juror of pronounced idiosyncrasies, is rather well illustrated91 by the following incident: The defendant's counsel, a man of considerable repute at the criminal bar, had spent over two days in the elaborate selection of a jury. It had taken him two hours to get a foreman to his fancy, but at last he had accepted a solid-looking old German grocer. After a trial lasting92 several days the jury convicted the defendant in short order, greatly to the disgust of the eminent93 lawyer, who vented94 his indignation rather loudly in the presence of the foreman as he was leaving the box. The old German leaned over good-naturedly and remarked, pointing to the door[Pg 216] in the back of the court-room leading to the prison pen: "Vell, Mr. ——, if you vant to know vat30 I tinks, I tells you. Ven I see him come in through dot leetle door back dere, den4 I knows he's guilty!"
This lawyer now selects a jury in thirty minutes.
Of course, some examination into the general qualifications of jurors and their possible bias in the case is imperative95, and frequently the interposition of a peremptory96 challenge is not only justifiable97, but absolutely necessary. A talesman will sometimes betray by an inflection of his voice a sentiment or prejudice which his words deny, or suggest to the vigilant98 counsel for the defendant the juror's susceptibility to the insidious99 flattery of the prosecutor in making him a part of the "organization of the court."
During the selection of a jury to try Moran, the dynamiter100, in March, 1906, before Judge Foster, in the General Sessions, a little old man took the stand who qualified101 satisfactorily as a juror so far as the prosecution was concerned. Daniel F. Cohalan, attorney for the defendant, then took him in hand somewhat as follows:
"Have you any prejudice against a man accused of crime?"
"I have not," replied the little old man.
"Or against this defendant?"
"I have not."
"I do."
"Do you know of any reason to the contrary?"
"I do not."
Cohalan turned to another line of examination.
[Pg 217]
"Do you read the papers?"
"Yes. Yes."
"What paper do you read?"
"What paper?"
"Yes. What paper do you read in the morning?"
The little old man settled himself in his chair and, eyeing Cohalan suspiciously, replied:
"Stop!" cried Cohalan feebly; "that's quite enough. Don't you do anything but read the papers?"
The little old man regarded the lawyer scornfully.
"I spend six hours a day keeping myself informed of what is going on. I flatter myself that there is nothing in the whole world with which I am not fully acquainted. Knowledge is power!"
"That is all. You are excused. You know too much for us!"
"I'd have given the —— twenty years!"
On the other hand, the hyper-sensitiveness of counsel renders it easy for talesmen to escape who do not wish to serve. The writer knows an estimable man who is regularly drawn106 about four times a year upon the special jury. He has never served. His method is as follows: Having taken his seat upon the witness-stand he wrinkles his forehead and looks fiercely at the defendant. When asked if he has any objection to capital punishment he thrusts out his under jaw107 and exclaims: "I should say not! I think hangin's too good for 'em!" In reality he is the[Pg 218] mildest, the most sympathetic and the "easiest" of human beings. Another observant talesman who appears periodically has learned, the writer believes, his trick from the first. His stock reply to the same question relative to capital punishment is, "I have not. I believe in the Biblical injunction of 'an eye for an eye,' and 'a tooth for a tooth,' and, 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed.'" Needless to say, he leaves the stand with the same alacrity108 as the other. Jurors readily enter into friendly relations with the prosecutor and defendant's counsel, but rarely with any effect upon their verdicts. In the first trial of Mock Duck, a Chinaman indicted109 for murder, where the defence interposed was an alibi110, to wit, that the prisoner had been buying a terrapin111 in Fulton Market at the time of the commission of the crime (whence the prosecutor claimed that it was the case of a Mock Duck with a mock turtle defence), a juryman met the defendant's counsel during recess112 and told him that there was no further need for him to call any more witnesses for the defendant, as the jury "understood the situation perfectly." The lawyer took the hint, and upon the reopening of court closed his case, feeling sure of an acquittal or at least of a disagreement. When the jury had retired113 the talesman in question made a long speech in favor of murder in the first degree, and refused to vote for any other crime. Such performances are rare. Of course, it not infrequently occurs that a juror by his manner of asking questions shows plainly his state of mind. The feelings of a prosecutor can be easily imagined when a juror turns in disgust from one of the People's witnesses, or those of a defendant's counsel when another,[Pg 219] looking towards the prisoner, grinds his teeth as the evidence goes in and ejaculates, "Brute114!"
The jury offers a fertile field for the study of human nature, and lawyers and prosecutors learn to look regularly for certain characters. Of these may be mentioned the too officious juror who asks hundreds of incompetent115 and irrelevant116 questions to which the lawyers are naturally afraid to object, and whose inquisitiveness117 has to be curbed118 by the court itself. Such a juror usually shows much conviction one way or the other in the early stages of the case, and before he has heard the evidence. Unfortunately his executive abilities usually fill the balance of the jury with such disgust that to have a juror of this sort on one's side is more of a misfortune than a boon119.
Jurors of this variety frequently at inopportune moments interrupt counsel during their addresses. In one case an aggressive talesman broke in upon a burst of carefully prepared eloquence120 with the brutal121 interrogation: "How about the knife?" The counsel stopped, bowed to the juror, smiled, and said calmly: "Thank you, Mr. Smith, I'm glad you spoke122 of that. I am coming to it in a moment." The juror, satisfied, leaned back contentedly123, but the lawyer has not "come" to the knife yet.
Practically the thing most desired by prosecutors and lawyers who are both convinced of the justice of their cause is homogeneity of some sort in the jury-box. Naturally antagonistic124 elements are undesirable, and a wise selector of juries will try to get men of approximately the same age, class in society, nationality, religion, and general character. Of course, this is a difficult matter, but without a[Pg 220] friendly and helpful spirit among the jurors cases will result frequently in disagreements. This is naturally less objectionable to the defendant than to the People, for ordinarily it may be said that "two disagreements are equivalent to an acquittal."
The common idea that juries are prone to leave their decisions to chance, as by flipping125 a coin, or to act upon impulse, whim126, caprice, or from a desire to get away, is grossly exaggerated.
It was Pope who sang in the "Rape of the Lock":
"The hungry judges soon the sentence sign,
Unfortunately, if the jury is hungry or exhausted128 and anxious to dispose of the case, the defendant invariably gets the benefit of it. The "wretches" don't "hang," but instead are turned out with a rush. Instances of verdicts being determined129 by such considerations are in fact rare.
Much of the seeming misguidedness of juries in criminal cases is due, just as it is due in civil cases, to the idiosyncrasy, or the avowed130 purpose to be "agin' the government," of a single talesman. In an ideal community, no matter how many persons constituted the jury, provided the evidence was clear one way or the other, the jury would always agree, since they would all be honest and reasonable men. But just as a certain portion of our population is mentally unbalanced, anarchistic132, and criminal, so will be a certain portion of our jurors. In addition to these elements there will almost invariably be found some men upon every panel who are so obstinate133, conceited134, and overbearing as to be totally unfit to serve, either from the point of view of the[Pg 221] people or the defence. It is enough for one of these recalcitrant135 gentlemen that eleven other human beings desire something else. That settles it. They shall go his way or not at all.
The writer believes, therefore, that some allowance should be made for the single lunatic or anarchist131 that gets himself drawn on about every fifth jury, for if he once be empanelled a disagreement will inevitably136 follow. This could be accomplished by reducing the number necessary for a verdict to eleven.[38] Hundreds of juries have been "hung" by just one man.[39] The trouble, as Professor Thayer points out, began a long, long time ago in a case reported in the Book of Assizes in 1367.
"In another assize before the same justices at Northampton, the assize was sworn. They were all agreed except one, who would not agree with the eleven. They were remanded and stayed there all that day and the next, without drink or food. Then the judges asked him if he would agree with his associates, and he said never,—he would die in prison first. Whereupon they took the verdict of the eleven and ordered him to prison, and thereupon a day[Pg 222] was given upon this verdict in the Common Bench.
... And afterwards by assent137 of all the justices it was declared that this was no verdict. It was therefore awarded that this panel be quashed and annulled138, and that he who was in prison be enlarged, and that the plaintiff sue a new venire facias.... Note, that the justices said they ought to have taken the assize with them in a wagon139 until they were agreed."
How much happier would not only the eleven, but the twelfth juror, who swore he would "die first," have been if, unanimity140 not being required, they could comfortably have agreed to disagree and yet returned to court and rendered a verdict.
A jury naturally tends to lean towards the defence—to let the accused go if they can conscientiously141 do so; to find somewhere a reasonable doubt as to the prisoner's guilt—and it is only because the cases are so well sifted142 before they come to trial at all, and the wheat separated from the chaff143 (the defendants in very weak cases being frequently discharged on the recommendation of the district attorney himself), that the percentage of acquittals is not vastly greater.
This natural feeling of sympathy for the accused makes it all the easier for juries to be affected144 consciously or unconsciously by considerations they have sworn to disregard. Then if the defendant be a woman, or a poor man with a large family, or his crime has injured no one's purse, or restitution145 has been made, or if the offence charged is merely that of swindling by means of false representations as to credit, or the defendant is very young or very old, or wears a clean collar, or has an attractive person[Pg 223]ality, or, better, a beautiful wife, he is turned out with a cheer.
Who are judges alike of the facts and the laws."
Yes, the jury system in criminal cases is a "practical success"—and it "works substantial justice." It works the exact justice that we want—the exact justice that we deserve. As we grow to have a greater respect for human life and a higher regard for law and honesty, the verdicts of our juries will continue to keep pace with our condition. Then we shall want something better, and we shall have it. The day will come when dishonesty in business will lead to the ball and chain as assuredly as arson and rape. But the time is not yet.
Then juries will decide the issues submitted to them upon the evidence alone, without prejudice or sympathy, in accordance with the laws which they are sworn to uphold, without truckling to popular sentiment or fear of newspaper disapproval147; then they will allow the judge to perform the functions vested in him by law without usurpation148 by their verdicts; and will "true deliverance make" between the People on the one hand and the defendant on the other. Then there will probably be no need for juries—for there will be no criminals.[40]
FOOTNOTES:
[36] This estimate does not apply to the actions of juries outside of New York County. In other cities and in other states, particularly in rural districts, the percentage of convictions is often shockingly small.
[37] The following figures may be of interest to those readers who are interested in the question of amending149 the laws governing the sale of liquor:
In the year 1907, out of a total of 1,237 cases which came before the Court of Special Sessions, there were 334 convictions, 7 pleas of guilty, 223 acquittals, 18 discharges and 116 transfers to the General Sessions. During the last eight years, out of a total of 7,416 cases, there were 3,129 convictions, 244 pleas of guilty, 2,143 acquittals, 395 discharges, 361 demurrers allowed and 1,144 cases transferred, on the defendants' motion, to General Sessions, to be tried under indictment150. During this period, very nearly half the cases have resulted in convictions.
These cases were tried, as the reader is aware, by a bench of three judges, who decide both law and fact. Compare this record with the result of 91 transfers, taken as illustrative, from the Special to the General Sessions in 1905. Of course, each case had to be taken first before the grand jury. Eighty-four of these cases were summarily dismissed by that body. In the remaining seven instances, indictments151 were secured. Four of these seven defendants pleaded guilty, two were acquitted by the jury, one was discharged on his own recognizance and none were convicted. In other words, out of the whole bunch of transfers, less than four per cent of the defendants were convicted, as against nearly fifty per cent of convictions in the Special Sessions, in all liquor-tax cases in the last eight years. In the same period, out of a total of 1,241 cases presented to the grand jury, 987 were dismissed by that body. Of the balance, viz., 254 in which indictments were secured, 25 pleaded guilty, 36 were discharged on their own recognizances, in 12 cases the bail152 was forfeited153, and of the 181 cases which actually were tried before juries, 165 defendants were acquitted and 16 were convicted.
In 1906, out of 85 cases transferred, 79 were dismissed, and of the remaining six, 5 defendants were acquitted and 1 was discharged. In 1907 there were 98 transferred and all were dismissed by the grand jury.
The significance of these figures becomes evident when it is realized that the defendants whose cases are thus transferred are those who are the actual holders154 of licenses155. They can afford to pay for the services of counsel, and their conviction is of vastly more importance to the community than that of their hirelings who actually sell the liquor over the bar. The barkeeper who violates the law and is caught, comes to trial in the Special Sessions, either pleads guilty or is convicted, and receives a fine which his employer promptly pays. The owner of the saloon thereupon discharges the defendant from his service and secures another barkeeper. This process can be continued indefinitely. But when the owner himself is caught and convicted, he is either driven out of business or has got to operate under another name. These are the men who apply for and are apparently156 able to secure transfers of their cases to the General Sessions, although any judge granting such motions is, or, at least, should be, aware of what the practical result of his action will be. The transfer of a liquor-tax case upon the order of the judge sitting in Part I of the General Sessions is practically tantamount to a dismissal of it.
[38] Whatever the actual origin of the number twelve for this purpose there certainly lingered in olden times a feeling that it had a sacred or foreordained character, and in Duncomb's Trials per pais, the following illuminating explanation is to be found:
"And first as to their number twelve: and this number is no less esteemed157 by our law than by Holy Writ40. If the twelve apostles on their twelve thrones must try us in our eternal state, good reason has the law to appoint the number of twelve to try our temporal. The tribes of Israel were twelve, the patriarchs were twelve, and Solomon's officers were twelve. Therefore not only matters of fact were tried by twelve, but of ancient times twelve judges were to try matters in law, in the Exchequer158 Chamber159, and there are twelve counsellors of state for matters of state; and he that wageth his law must have eleven others with him who believe he says true. And the law is so precise in this number of twelve, that if the trial be by more or less, it is a mistrial." (Cf. Thayer's Preliminary Treatise160, as cited, p. 90.)
[40] Many cases result in mis-trials owing to the sickness or death of a single juror. In persecutions which it can be foreseen will be long the swearing of an extra juror would obviate161 this difficulty. Cf. "Newspapers and the Jury," Clarence B. Smith, 17 Greenbag 223.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
prosecutors
|
|
| 检举人( prosecutor的名词复数 )； 告发人； 起诉人； 公诉人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
prosecutor
|
|
| n.起诉人；检察官，公诉人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
den
|
|
| n.兽穴；秘密地方；安静的小房间，私室 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
capability
|
|
| n.能力；才能；(pl)可发展的能力或特性等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
innate
|
|
| adj.天生的，固有的，天赋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
defendant
|
|
| n.被告；adj.处于被告地位的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
bosom
|
|
| n.胸，胸部；胸怀；内心；adj.亲密的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
rev
|
|
| v.发动机旋转，加快速度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
promptly
|
|
| adv.及时地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
indict
|
|
| v.起诉，控告，指控 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
acquitted
|
|
| 宣判…无罪( acquit的过去式和过去分词 )； 使（自己）作出某种表现 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
acquit
|
|
| vt.宣判无罪；(oneself)使(自己)表现出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
improperly
|
|
| 不正确地，不适当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
malefactor
|
|
| n.罪犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
refreshing
|
|
| adj.使精神振作的，使人清爽的，使人喜欢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
wholesome
|
|
| adj.适合；卫生的；有益健康的；显示身心健康的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
elevation
|
|
| n.高度；海拔；高地；上升；提高 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
vat
|
|
| n.(=value added tax)增值税，大桶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
defendants
|
|
| 被告( defendant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
larceny
|
|
| n.盗窃（罪） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
usurped
|
|
| 篡夺，霸占( usurp的过去式和过去分词 )； 盗用； 篡夺，篡权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
illuminating
|
|
| a.富于启发性的，有助阐明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
seducer
|
|
| n.诱惑者,骗子,玩弄女性的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
writ
|
|
| n.命令状，书面命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
rape
|
|
| n.抢夺，掠夺，强奸；vt.掠夺，抢夺，强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
arson
|
|
| n.纵火，放火 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
forgery
|
|
| n.伪造的文件等，赝品，伪造（行为） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
gambling
|
|
| n.赌博；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
stigmatized
|
|
| v.使受耻辱，指责，污辱( stigmatize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
hypocrisy
|
|
| n.伪善，虚伪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
countenances
|
|
| n.面容( countenance的名词复数 )；表情；镇静；道义支持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
conscientious
|
|
| adj.审慎正直的，认真的，本着良心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
violations
|
|
| 违反( violation的名词复数 )； 冒犯； 违反（行为、事例）； 强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
inconvenient
|
|
| adj.不方便的，令人感到麻烦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
condemns
|
|
| v.（通常因道义上的原因而）谴责( condemn的第三人称单数 )；宣判；宣布…不能使用；迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
rhetoric
|
|
| n.修辞学，浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
averted
|
|
| 防止，避免( avert的过去式和过去分词 )； 转移 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
countenanced
|
|
| v.支持，赞同，批准( countenance的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
59
retailer
|
|
| n.零售商(人) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
fictitious
|
|
| adj.虚构的，假设的；空头的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
alluring
|
|
| adj.吸引人的，迷人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
syllogism
|
|
| n.演绎法，三段论法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
lighting
|
|
| n.照明，光线的明暗，舞台灯光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
cowardice
|
|
| n.胆小，怯懦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
joyful
|
|
| adj.欢乐的，令人欢欣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
trifling
|
|
| adj.微不足道的；没什么价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
wilful
|
|
| adj.任性的，故意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
bias
|
|
| n.偏见，偏心，偏袒；vt.使有偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
maxims
|
|
| n.格言，座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
susceptible
|
|
| adj.过敏的，敏感的；易动感情的，易受感动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
undesirable
|
|
| adj.不受欢迎的，不良的，不合意的，讨厌的；n.不受欢迎的人，不良分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
drooping
|
|
| adj. 下垂的，无力的 动词droop的现在分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
missionaries
|
|
| n.传教士( missionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
instinctively
|
|
| adv.本能地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
presentiment
|
|
| n.预感，预觉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
prone
|
|
| adj.(to)易于…的，很可能…的；俯卧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
dealers
|
|
| n.商人( dealer的名词复数 )；贩毒者；毒品贩子；发牌者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
lenient
|
|
| adj.宽大的，仁慈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
incisive
|
|
| adj.敏锐的，机敏的，锋利的，切入的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
cowering
|
|
| v.畏缩，抖缩( cower的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
frivolous
|
|
| adj.轻薄的；轻率的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
unnatural
|
|
| adj.不自然的；反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
pretexts
|
|
| n.借口，托辞( pretext的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
wrenched
|
|
| v.（猛力地）扭( wrench的过去式和过去分词 )；扭伤；使感到痛苦；使悲痛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
bosoms
|
|
| 胸部( bosom的名词复数 )； 胸怀； 女衣胸部（或胸襟）； 和爱护自己的人在一起的情形 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
peremptorily
|
|
| adv.紧急地，不容分说地，专横地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
futility
|
|
| n.无用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
illustrated
|
|
| adj. 有插图的，列举的 动词illustrate的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
lasting
|
|
| adj.永久的，永恒的；vbl.持续，维持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
vented
|
|
| 表达，发泄（感情，尤指愤怒）( vent的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
imperative
|
|
| n.命令，需要；规则；祈使语气；adj.强制的；紧急的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
peremptory
|
|
| adj.紧急的，专横的，断然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
justifiable
|
|
| adj.有理由的，无可非议的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
vigilant
|
|
| adj.警觉的，警戒的，警惕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
insidious
|
|
| adj.阴险的，隐匿的，暗中为害的，（疾病）不知不觉之间加剧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
dynamiter
|
|
| n.炸药使用者（尤指革命者） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
impartial
|
|
| adj.(in,to)公正的，无偏见的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
herald
|
|
| vt.预示...的来临，预告，宣布，欢迎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
collapsed
|
|
| adj.倒塌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
shuffled
|
|
| v.洗（纸牌）( shuffle的过去式和过去分词 )；拖着脚步走；粗心地做；摆脱尘世的烦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
jaw
|
|
| n.颚，颌，说教，流言蜚语；v.喋喋不休，教训 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
alacrity
|
|
| n.敏捷，轻快，乐意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
indicted
|
|
| 控告，起诉( indict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
alibi
|
|
| n.某人当时不在犯罪现场的申辩或证明；借口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
terrapin
|
|
| n.泥龟；鳖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
recess
|
|
| n.短期休息，壁凹（墙上装架子，柜子等凹处） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
retired
|
|
| adj.隐退的，退休的，退役的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
brute
|
|
| n.野兽，兽性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
incompetent
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能胜任的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
irrelevant
|
|
| adj.不恰当的，无关系的，不相干的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
inquisitiveness
|
|
| 好奇，求知欲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
curbed
|
|
| v.限制，克制，抑制( curb的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
boon
|
|
| n.恩赐，恩物，恩惠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
eloquence
|
|
| n.雄辩；口才，修辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
contentedly
|
|
| adv.心满意足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
antagonistic
|
|
| adj.敌对的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
flipping
|
|
| 讨厌之极的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
whim
|
|
| n.一时的兴致，突然的念头；奇想，幻想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
wretches
|
|
| n.不幸的人( wretch的名词复数 )；可怜的人；恶棍；坏蛋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
exhausted
|
|
| adj.极其疲惫的，精疲力尽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
avowed
|
|
| adj.公开声明的，承认的v.公开声明，承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
anarchist
|
|
| n.无政府主义者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
anarchistic
|
|
| 无政府主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
obstinate
|
|
| adj.顽固的，倔强的，不易屈服的，较难治愈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
conceited
|
|
| adj.自负的，骄傲自满的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
recalcitrant
|
|
| adj.倔强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
assent
|
|
| v.批准，认可；n.批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
annulled
|
|
| v.宣告无效( annul的过去式和过去分词 )；取消；使消失；抹去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
wagon
|
|
| n.四轮马车，手推车，面包车；无盖运货列车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
unanimity
|
|
| n.全体一致，一致同意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
conscientiously
|
|
| adv.凭良心地；认真地，负责尽职地；老老实实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
sifted
|
|
| v.筛( sift的过去式和过去分词 )；筛滤；细查；详审 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
chaff
|
|
| v.取笑，嘲笑；n.谷壳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
restitution
|
|
| n.赔偿；恢复原状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
disapproval
|
|
| n.反对，不赞成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
usurpation
|
|
| n.篡位；霸占 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
amending
|
|
| 改良，修改，修订( amend的现在分词 )； 改良，修改，修订( amend的第三人称单数 )( amends的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
indictments
|
|
| n.（制度、社会等的）衰败迹象( indictment的名词复数 )；刑事起诉书；公诉书；控告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
bail
|
|
| v.舀（水），保释；n.保证金，保释，保释人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
forfeited
|
|
| （因违反协议、犯规、受罚等）丧失，失去( forfeit的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
holders
|
|
| 支持物( holder的名词复数 )； 持有者； （支票等）持有人； 支托（或握持）…之物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
licenses
|
|
| n.执照( license的名词复数 )v.批准，许可，颁发执照( license的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
esteemed
|
|
| adj.受人尊敬的v.尊敬( esteem的过去式和过去分词 )；敬重；认为；以为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
exchequer
|
|
| n.财政部；国库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
chamber
|
|
| n.房间，寝室；会议厅；议院；会所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
obviate
|
|
| v.除去，排除，避免，预防 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |