The American Judiciary

by Simeon E. Baldwin

In the federal courts, in capital cases, the defendant must be furnished with a copy of the indictment and a list of the jurors summoned to court and of the government witnesses, at least two days before the trial.

Whether impanelling the jury for the trial of a case is a long or short process will depend largely on the intelligence and firmness of the judge who holds the court. Each side can challenge a certain number of the jurors in attendance without stating any reasons for it, as well as any and every one of them for cause shown. If a juror has formed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused so definite as to amount to a settled prejudice against him, he is incompetent. In grave cases the prisoner's counsel will often seek to examine every juror whose name is drawn at great length as to whether he has such an opinion. A capable judge will keep such an inquiry within close limits.

In 1824, an indictment for murder was found in Kentucky against a son of the Governor. The case was one which excited great public interest, and was talked over from one end of the State to the other. The result was that when the trial came on it was found impossible, term after term, to make up a jury of men who, from what they had heard or read, had not formed what the defense claimed and the court thought to be a sufficiently firm opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused to justify their exclusion. The legislature was finally appealed to for relief and passed a statute that an opinion formed from mere rumor should not be a ground of challenge. The case was then, in 1827, taken up for the ninth time, but with the same result, whereupon the defendant's father gave him a pardon, on the ground that "the prospect of obtaining a jury is entirely hopeless," and that he had "no doubt of his being innocent of the foul charges."[Footnote: Niles' Register, XXXII, 357, 405; XXXVIII, 336.]

When a capital case is coming on, great pains will often be taken by the prisoner's counsel to ascertain the characteristics and disposition toward his client of each of the jurors who have been summoned to court. This has sometimes been carried to the extent of trickery, particularly in some of the Southern States. Agents have been sent over the county to see every man capable of jury service. There is some ostensible reason given for the call. He is perhaps asked to buy a photograph of the accused; perhaps to contribute to a fund to provide him with counsel. This naturally leads to some expression of opinion in regards to the charge made against him, and if the man thus "interviewed" should be afterwards offered as a juror, he is challenged or not challenged according to the information so obtained.

In every criminal case the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A mere preponderance of evidence is not enough. In other respects the rules of evidence are applicable which obtain in civil cases.

If a verdict of Not Guilty is returned, the court orders the discharge of the prisoner, as a matter of course, unless provision has been made by statute for an appeal by the State for errors of law committed on the trial. No such appeal can be allowed for the purpose of obtaining a new trial on the ground that the jury came to a wrong conclusion on the facts. This would be to put the defendant twice in jeopardy, which our Constitutions generally forbid. Even under the practice prevailing in the Philippine Islands, where they have no juries, and an appeal to a higher court for a new trial on the merits has always been allowed to either party in a criminal case, as a matter of right, this rule is held to apply.[Footnote: Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. Reports, 100.]

If the verdict is one of Guilty, the sentence is pronounced by the judge. He generally has a broad discretion as to the extent and nature of the punishment. For many offenses, either fine or imprisonment or both may be imposed, according to his best judgment. For most, when imprisonment is ordered, it may be for a term such as he may prescribe within certain limits, as, for instance, from one to five years. In a number of States of late years the judge is permitted in such a case to sentence for not less than one year, and it is left to some administrative board to determine later how much, if any, longer the confinement shall last, in view of the circumstances of the offense, the character of the prisoner, and his conduct since his sentence.

A considerable and increasing group of penologists is pressing upon our legislatures the extension of the principle of the "indeterminate sentence" by removing the limit of a minimum term. It is doubtful if such a change would satisfy the constitutional requirement of a trial by jury. That in its nature involves a trial before a judge and a sentence imposed by the court upon the verdict. Can that be deemed a judicial sentence to imprisonment which is a sentence to imprisonment during the pleasure of certain administrative officials? Judgments are to ascertain justice. To do this they must be themselves certain. In a purely indeterminate sentence there is no certainty until it has been made certain by the subsequent action of the administrative authorities. It may turn out to be imprisonment for life, and the advocates of this mode of action frankly say that such ought to be the disposition of all incorrigible and habitual criminals. If so, ought not the fate to be meted out to them by judicial authority? Can anything less than that be considered as due process of law?

An experienced and able judge seldom makes any serious error in grading the punishment of offenders who have been tried before him. The sentence is not pronounced until they have been fully heard as to all circumstances of extenuation, nor until the government has been heard both as to these and as to any circumstances of aggravation. The sentence, if the offense be a grave one, cannot be pronounced except in the presence of the convicted man. He has an opportunity for the last word.

Judges who are neither able nor experienced frequently impose sentences too light or too severe. We have too many such judges in the United States. The real remedy for the evil is to choose better ones. As between judges and boards of prison officers or of public charities, the judge always has the great advantage of having tried the case and heard the witnesses. He ought therefore to be best able to fix the term of punishment.