Charitable institutions are sometimes investigated upon charges of starvation, cruelty, or neglect Several, or perhaps all, of the children are found in a state of extreme anaemia, and the evidence is very strong that they have been starved. A plea, however; may be put in that from hereditary causes, and previous bad living, their constitutions have been so affected that their present bad condition is the result of this, and not of want of food in the institution. Moreover, an examination of the premises reveals a bad sanitary condition. The ventilation may be found faulty and not remediable by the party accused, or its faults may not have been understood. The soil-pipes may have been defective, and currents of foul air have defiled the healthy currents of life. Prolonged investigation and unbiased judgment is often required for the decision of such cases. Questions concerning the legitimacy of offspring often arise which arc so evenly balanced by the learning and research which is brought into the legal arena by the medical experts that it is sometimes scarcely possible for an unprejudiced person to come to a conclusion; but this only shows how great is the importance of precise knowledge. Certain cases of legal medicine which conic within the province of professed alicuists, or those who make a special study of mental disease, are more or less of an empirical character, and for that reason often require great experience on the part of the expert to enable him to pronounce a well-founded opiuion. This part of medical jurisprudence may be regarded as in its infancy, involving, as it does, cases of temporary mental aberration, of the diag nosis of the various kinds of insanity, and the subject of trance, or somnambulism. The medical expert is often required to be an adept in microscopy, as well as a good chemist, in order to be able to make thorough examinations of various kinds of stains which some times form the principal subjects of his investigations. The condition of blood stains, brought forward as evidence of guilt, may be such as to lead to the detection of fraud, and of the fastening of the evidence of guilt upon a party who had hitherto escaped suspicion, or against whom there was no evidence. The blood of certain classes of animals can be certainly distinguished from that of others. How far the distinction can be made it is unnecessary here to say ; but the blood of birds is so different from that of man and other mammals that its detection is one of the easy problems of microscopy. Blood which has collected in cavities from traumatic extravasation, and that which is consequent upon post-mortem change, under certain circumstances is often the cause of touch discussion. The condition of the heart and of the lungs under the various circum stances in which death by suffocation may take place, often presents problems to the medi ;al jurist requiring the greatest circumspection and analytical examination. Authorities may sometimes be found to conflict with each other, or by a variation in the statement of facts may be made to seem to do so, and therefore the•most original and well-educated professional attainments are often required to enable judge or jury to reach an intelligent conclusion. The differential diagnosis of the various modes of death, the evidence of which may have been left upon the body; the evidence afforded by the post-mortem condition of various organs, as the brain, the kidneys, the liver, the lungs, the spleen, the heart, the stomach, and the intestinal canal; of the eyes, of the nails, and of the surface of the body, must be matters familiar to the medical expert or witness. The chemist. as a legal expert in cases of poisoning, must be familiar with the various tests and methods of examining poisons; but the physician who may be called in the case should have as thorough a knowledge as possible of the therapeutic and toxic effects of different poisons upon the body, and particularly of the post-mortem appearances which they produce. The failure of the chemist may be supplied by the physician, or, if there be reason to suspect error in the analysis, scientific pathology may COMC to the aid of justice.
Dead persons found beneath the surface of water often present difficult problems for the medical expert. Was the death caused by drowning? What evidence is offered by the condition of the lungs or the stomach? Do they contain water; and if the evidence be conclusive that they were drowned, was the case one of homicide or of suicide? Ia there any wound upon the body which would have caused death had drowning formed no part of the cause? It is possible that a homicide may have been committed with a knife or a pistol or other deadly weapon, and if death had taken place before the body was thrown into the water the evidences of drowning would have been absent. Was death produced by strangulation, and, if so, what other circumstances are there capable of connecting some person with the crime? An intelligent professional examination of the case will often lead to the detection of the criminal when all the more common modes of search will be in vain. Poison may be found in the stomach of the person
supposed to be drowned, and evidence may be furnished tending to show that the poison had been administered with either a homicidal or a suicidal intent. Which ever way this evidence tends, may be strengthened or weakened, or overthrown by the extent to which the poison has penetrated to the various organs of the body, taken in con nection with all the circumstances. A very brief sketch of an actual case will serve to further illustrate the value of the science of medical jurisprudence. A woman was found dead in her bed. A coroner's jury found that her throat was cut almost from ear to ear, severing the principal blood-vessels and the windpipe. An open.razor was found lying under her right arm. No extensive examination waa Made; the case appeared to be one of suicide, no doubt seemed to be raised, a verdict was rendered accordingly, and the body was buried. Several months after suspicions were entertained by certain punks against the husband. The body was exhumed, and another coroner's jury returned a verdict of homicide, charging him with the act. He was arrested and brought to trial. The medical counsel for the prosecution contended that it was a case of suffoca tion and subsequent throat-cutting. Contradictory evidence in regard to the amount of blood which had flowed from the wound was given at the trial. The theory of suffoca tion required that there should be but little flow of blood, and several witnesses testified that the loss of blood was insignificant. On the other side witnesses testified to the loss of considerable quantities of arterial blood. It was contended on one side that the wound was such in extent and direction that it could have been done only by a homicide, taken in connection with the rather delicate physical condition of the wife. On the contrary, the defense contended that the extent and direction of the cut furnished evidence of suicide, and, moreover, conclusive evidence against homicide, taken in con nection with other circumstances, such as the relations of the bed to the room. It was placed with one side against the wall, and it was contended that it would have been impossible for a homicide to make the incision in the neck unless standing at that side of the bed. This presupposed too much forethought and deliberation on the part of the husband. It was contended by the prosecution that the condition of the lungs, found at the second post-mortem inspection, indicated suffocation, or partial suffocation, previous to the cutting of the throat; but the examination of one of the found in the body at the third post-mortem by experts employed by the defense indicated, as was con tended by them, that there had been no engorgement or passive congestion, but rather a want of natural quantity of blood at the time of death. The accused was acquitted. If the case had not been defended in the most resolute manner, and the greatest circum spection practiced, it is probable that a contrary verdict would have been rendered. See HOMICIDAL MANIA; INFANTICIDE; INSANITY; LUNACY; and MunnEn.
JURY (Juicy TRIAL, ante). An impartial jury is insured by the practice of the right of and by the method of securing a jury invariably by lot, the choice being additionally guarded by the necessity for each juror to swear to his freedom from any preconceived opinion as to the case on trial, and that he is in possession of no informa tion regarding it, of a nature to influence his decision. Juries are divided into common, grand, special, petit, and struck. A common jury is so entitled to signify that it is drawn in the usual manner. A grand jury has for its duty the examination of evidence igainst a suspected person with a view to discover if this lie sutlieient foundation on to triune an indictment. A petit jury passes filially on all cases that conic before it. A special jury and a struck jury are obtained by the parties striking from the panel such a number as shall leave the number required by law. Juries are in all cases to determine from the evidence the facts in dispute in the causes that are brought before them. In the matter of law they are supposed to follow the instructions of the court, but frequently a mixed question of law and fact is raised which must be submitted to and passed upon by a jury. Courts of special session, police magistrates, and justices of the peace are qualified to decide causes without the intervention of a jury. The right of trial by jury is guaranteed by the constitution in all criminal cases except upon impeachment, and in all civil cases where the amount in dispute exceeds the sum of 20 dollars. Jurors, in this country, are commonly selected by the sheriff or other court officer from among the persons possessing the statutory qualifications.