Modifications of the Jury System. the determination of justice by causing a new trial. If two-thirds or three-fourths of the jury were able to render the verdict, it is quite likely that fewer new trials would occur. There would be fewer disagreements and cases would be hastened on their way to their adjudication in the higher court. In recent years there have been a num ber of suits growing out of elections or in other ways the results of actions of a political nature. They have been cases in which the actions of a political party were concerned. A verdict for the relator would in some way interfere with the party's prospects of suc cess in the next election. Juries whose mem bers have been of different political parties have often failed to agree when there was a chance that the verdict would result in injury to the success of the party candidates. Such was the outcome of the Laingsburgh election cases in the State of New York. The trial occupied thirty days and 750 witnesses were sworn, but the jury could not agree. They divided' on party lines, nine for the defendant and three for the relator. Such has been the case with juries in other parts of the country when considering similar cases. It has be come the current opinion that whenever there is a favorable opportunity a jury will be very apt to divide on party lines. It is clear that the disagreements that are now so common in the trials of a political nature would be greatly reduced if a verdict could be rendered by less then twelve of the jurymen. Partisans of this reform also urge that it is in no wise inconsistent with the general character of the administration of justice as now carried on. Inconsistencies in the judicial system are pointed out. If a person brings a claim against a board it is allowed or rejected by a majority of the board. If he is dissatisfied with the award and takes the matter into the courts, there his claim will be decided upon by the unanimous verdict of twelve men. When originally presented to the board, he needed to convince onlv a ma
517
jority of its justice; now before the court he must convince twelve men that he is in the right in his demands. It has been said that the decision of ques tions of law is as important as the decisions of questions of fact. In courts that have more than one judge questions of law are always decided by a mere majority. The de cision is never required to be unanimous. The same thing is true of all the leading governmental actions in countries where there is government by a body of men. The policy of the government as to peace or war is not necessarily determined by more than a mere majority. It is said that unanimity is a requisite of the jury room, but of no other place in the conduct of the government. No one has advocated the abolition of the unit rule in the trial of criminal cases. It is unlikely that this rule will ever be dispensed with in such trials. In criminal cases the ac cused is entitled to. the presumption that he is innocent till his guilt is proven. The law requires that before he may be declared guilty, there must be in the minds of the twelve jurors no reasonable doubt of his in nocence. In a civil case on the other hand, the decision is made according to the pre ponderance of the evidence. There may be a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, but that does not preclude them from render ing their verdict in favor of the litigant on whose side the preponderance of the evi dence lies. It is therefore not so important in the civil case that there should be a unani mous verdict. It is not a matter of the guilt or innocence of anyone, but rather the deter mination of questions of mcum and tnum. In such questions it is more important that decisions should be reached and the judicial machinery kept in operation than that ab stract justice be obtained. One of the strong arguments for the unanimity rule is that it tends to emphasize the importance of the individual juror, and in this wav make him more attentive to the
