MODIFICATIONS OF THE JURY SYSTEM. BY JOHN BURTON PHILLIPS, Professor of Economics in the University of Colorado.
THERE has always been considerable agi tation against the rule that a jury should be unanimous in the verdict it renders. Emlyn in 1730 argued for the abolition of the rule. Hallam in his Middle Ages wrote against it. Bentham and Francis Lieber are also on record in favor of its abolition. But a greater name than any of these in modern jurisprudence is that of Judge Cooley. In his edition of Blackstone, he says of the jury system as far as its unit rule is concerned, that it is "repugnant to all experience of hu man conduct, passions and understandings/' He further says that "it could hardly, in any age, have been introduced into practice by a deliberate act of the Legislature." Justice Miller of the United States Supreme Court is also on record against the unit rule. He says, "I am of opinion- that the system of trial by jury would be much more valuable, much shorn of many of its tvils and much more entitled to the confidence of the pub lic, as well as of the legal and judicial minds of the country, if some number less than the whole should be authorixed to render a verdict. It is peculiar that the unit rule in regard to the verdict of the jury is a thing that pre vails in England and America alone. In Scotland, before 1815, a verdict could be rendered by two-thirds of the jury. The English system of unanimous verdict was in troduced in 1830, but it did not give general satisfaction. In 1854 it was modified by a law which provides that a verdict by nine jurors is sufficient after six hours' delibera tion. In France the jury system was introduced in 1771, and requires only a two-thirds vote for a verdict. In Italy and Germany a ma jority is sufficient, and in Austria, eight of the twelve are all that are required to agree.
In British India, after reasonable deliberation if six are united in their opinion and the judge agrees with them they may render a verdict Reasonable is interpreted by the judge. In the Bahama Islands, a verdict may be rendered by two-thirds of the twelve. This is enough to show that the unit rule has been greatly modified by the countries of the old world. It has also been partly aban doned by the following American States: STATES IN WHICH VERDICTS NEED NOT BE UNANIMOUS. Arizona—Three-fourths in civil and misdemeanor cases, 'gi ch. 5. California—Three-fourths in civil cases. С С P '97, §618. Colorado—Three-fourths in civil cases. '99 ch. in. Unconstitutional. 28 Col. 129. Idaho—Three-fourths in civil cases. Five-sixths majority in misdemeanors. Const, art. I, § 7. '91, p. 165. Kentucky—Three-fourths in civil cases. Statutes '94, § 2268. Louisiana—Three-fourths in crimes not capital. Const. § 116. Montana—Two-thirds in crimes not felonies. P. C. § 2142. Two-thirds in civil actions. C. C. P. § 1084. Minnesota—Legislature may provide for verdict by five-sixths of jury after six hours' delibera tion. Const, art. i, § 4. Missouri—Three-fourths in courts of record: two-thirds in other courts. Civil cases. '99, p. 381. Nevada—Three-fourths in civil cases. C. L. 'oo, § 3270. South Dakota—Three-fourths in civil cases. Ann. S. 'op, § 6268. Utah—Three-fourths in civil cases. Const, art. r. § ID. Washington—Ten of twelve itirors may render verdict in civil cases. Ballinsrer's S. §5011. Wynmins;—Three-fourths in civil cases. R. S. ' '99. § 3651.
Some of the leading arguments for this re form of the jury system are given below. The principal one is, of course, the claim that the jury as at present constituted gives one man too much power. Everyone is familiar with instances where one man has been able to set at naught the
