decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Not quite, but something like it from old time England | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Not quite, but something like it from old time England
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:51 AM EDT
Quoting from History of Trial by Jury , William Forsyth M.A., 2nd Ed. (1875) revised by James Appleton Morgan Esq.
Bishop Burnet tells us of a jury in his time who were shut up a whole day and night, and those who were lor an acquittal yielded to the fury of the rest, only that they might save their lives, and not be starved. At the present day, when the jury in a criminal trial can not agree upon a verdict, they are discharged as soon as the confinement and abstinence become seriously injurious to health; and this is generally certified to the court by a medical man. But it may well be doubted whether the rule as to their being kept “without meat, drink, or fire,” ought not to be relaxed. It is difficult to see what harm can possibly result from their being supplied with a moderate degree of food and the warmth of fire during their deliberation. The interruption of their ordinary occupations, and the loss of time and inconvenience occasioned by their attendance at the trial, are quite a sufficient stimulus to induce them to come quickly to an agreement, without adding the pangs of hunger, and thirst, and cold. And it seems absurd, if not worse, to try and starve men into unanimity in a matter in which their consciences are concerned. The result must often be that the strongest stomach, instead of the wisest head, carries the day. I feel persuaded that if we first heard of the existence of this custom in a book of travels relating to some distant country, we should denounce it as utterly unreasonable; and nothing but long usage could reconcile us to its continuance amongst us. For my own part, I am unable to devise an argument defending it. The possibility of excess seems to be the only pretext for the rule; but this is a chimerical apprehension, since it is always in the power of the court to take care that the food and drink supplied shall be of the most temperate kind. It may possibly be said, that even this to some common jurors would be a temptation to prolong the sitting; but when we consider the detriment to their own private affairs which absence causes, such a case can only be a rare and exceptional one.

[ ... ]

The rule, however, in this respect, is different at the present day, for it is only after the judge has summed up and the jury are considering their verdict, that they are prohibited from having “meat, drink, or fire, candle-light only excepted.” Otherwise, in cases when a trial extends over several days, it would be physically impossible to enforce abstinence, and prisoners would escape by resorting to the expedient of tedious and protracted delay in their defense. No such lengthened trials were, however, known in the simple times of old. But the reason assigned for the rule in the passage above quoted is not the true one. It arose, no doubt, from the propensity of our ancestors to indulge in excess at their meals; and was dictated by a fear lest jurors should, if they had access when impaneled to food and drink, become incapacitated from a due discharge of their duty.

The first mention of the rule occurs, I believe, in Fleta, which was written in the reign of Edward I., and it is there said, that the sheriff is to cause the jurors in an assize to be kept sine cibo et potu until they are agreed. But at that time it was in the option of the justices, either compellere ad concordiam the jury in this way, or to afforce it by adding, as has been previously explained, jurors to the majority, until twelve were found to be unanimous. The expression compellere ad concordiam shows that in Fleta’s time a compulsory process might be resorted to in order to produce an unanimous verdict; and this is further shown by the fact, that the dissentient minority were subjected to a fine quasi pro transgressione. But here again we must not forget that the jurors were still regarded merely as witnesses. And if seven men swore positively that they had seen and known the possession of land to be in a particular person, or his ancestors, the presumption was very strong that five other neighbors who professed to be cognizant of the matter must have known the same fact, and therefore, in refusing to concur in the verdict of the majority, they were deemed to be guilty of contumacy, if not willful perjury. But it deserves notice, that by the law of the Saxon Ethelred, which has been already quoted, if two-thirds of the thanes who formed the court or inquest agreed, the remaining one-third who dissented were fined. “Let doom stand where thanes are of one voice: if they disagree, let that stand which VIII. of them say. And let those who are out-voted pay each of them VI. half-marks.” And the thanes spoken of here were certainly not witnesses, but sat in the capacity of judges.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )