JURY, 12 impartial men, legally competent to act, who, under the sanction of their oaths, determine by their unanimous verdict the inno cence or guilt of the accused in a criminal trial, or decide the issues of fact which are contested between plaintiff and defendant in a civil trial.
The jury is the characteristic feature of English or common law, distinguishing it from the systems of continental Europe derived from the law of the Roman Empire. It is peculiar in itself and incidentally it has produced charac teristic developments of our law not found in the Roman or civil law systems, of which per haps the most noteworthy is our law of Evi dence. The history of the jury system has been most thoroughly and ably investigated, especially in recent years.
Its function has completely changed. Orig inally those persons from the vicinity who had knowledge of the subject matter were sum moned to court to state, upon their solemn oaths, what the common opinion of the neigh borhood was as to those facts which formed the basis of the criminal charge to be tried, or the basis of the right to possession or enjoy ment of land which was at issue, which were the typical cases of early days. It seems to have been soon established that 12 substantial men were a sufficient number to determine this question. As the judicial system developed, courts came to have more extended territorial jurisdiction, and litigation grew more exten sive. Attendance of 12 persons acquainted with the facts of each cause to be tried would im pose an intolerable burden upon the commu nity, and our forefathers worked out the plan of submitting their legal controversies to the decision of an impartial jury sworn to deter mine the facts in issue upon testimony given under oath by witnesses summoned by the parties.
Students of English and American history would probably unanimously agree that as a part of our system of civil government the jury has been a valuable institution. There can be no doubt of its educational value, and of its importance in making each freeholder who served on a jpry feel that he was individually performing an important public duty. Juries
played a conspicuous part in defense of popular rights against attempts at tyrannical exercise of authority by the executive government. In the libel cases of the 18th century the contest was bitterly fought, the judges, under the lead of Lord Mansfield, maintaining that whether a document was libelous or not libelous was a question of law for the court (that is, for the judge) to determine, the jury being limited to finding affirmatively or negatively the fact of publication; while the juries, on the other hand, contended for their right to find general ver dicts («guilt? or °not guilt?). The contest was settled by Fox's Libel Act in favor of the right of the jury to determine the guilt or inno cence of the accused.
Students of law differ as to the merits of the jury system. Arguments drawn from the supposed mental of juries need not be considered, since this is not an inherent defect, and there is no more reason why a com munity should have inferior jurymen than in ferior officials of any other class. But weighty objections of an essential character have been suggested. The chief is as to the requirement of an unanimous verdict, which, it is argued, must constantly produce a disagreement and failure to reach a conclusion, or the sacrifice of opinions conscientiously held by some of the jurors. There is no doubt that this require ment is an essential feature of the jury system as known to English law; it has been expressly so decided by the Supreme Court of the United States which, in interpreting the cl use of the Federal Constitution which provides that in civil suits in the Federal courts the right of trial by shall be preserved," has held that this requires the unanimous verdict of 12 men. A small number of the State- have modified the system by providing for juries of less than 12, or of verdicts rendered by a vote less than unanimous. When such legislation is not in conflict with the State constitution it is lawful, as is doubtess the provision authorizing the service of women on juries.