Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1956
File 048
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1956 - File 048. 1956-02. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. November 23, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/909/show/887.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-02). Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1956 - File 048. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/909/show/887

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1956 - File 048, 1956-02, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed November 23, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/909/show/887.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1956
Alternate Title Facts Forum News, Vol. V, No. 2, February 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date February 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States
Item Description
Title File 048
Transcript .I&TS AMWIOW? By WARREN E. BURGER Assistant Attorney Genera/ of the United Stat'5 ONE OF THE earliest recollections I have of the judicial process goes back to an early visit to a courtroom in the early 1930's when 1 was admitted to practice law. The care used in the selection of the jurors, the careful explanation by the judge of the duties and responsibilities of the jury as a part of the judicial system, and later the solemnity of the oath of the witness and the careful charge of the judge, all made a very vivid impression on me. But no single phase of the process of trial by jury left such a strong impact on my mind as the oath which the judge personally administered to the court bailiff when the judge's charge to the jury was closed. The judge called two bailiffs — a man and a woman — before the Bench and all raised their right hands as the judge administered an oath by which the bailiffs pledged that they would keep the jurors together, separate and apart from all other persons until they reached a verdict They also swore that they would permit no person to approach the jurors or speak to them or permit anyone to overhear their deliberations — further that they, the bailiffs, would not communicate with jurors except to convey messages from or to the judge. I checked two federal districts and found two fairly typical oaths of this kind — although some courts use no oath at all, merely giving the bailiff or marshal an instruction. One reads thus: Address delivered recently before the Northwest Regional Meeting of the American Bar Association, Page 46 You do solemnly sw,-.,r that you will take this jury to some safe, quiet and convenient place and permit no one to speak to them nor to speak to them yourself unless it be to ask if they have agreed upon their verdict, so help you God. Another spells out the duty more fully; thus: Do you solemnly swear that when this court commits these twelve jurors to your care and custody you will use all reasonable means to keep them in a body as they deliberate, that you will not suffer them to speak to any other person, nor suffer others to speak to them, and that you will preserve and protect the privacy of their deliberations on this case and that you will report promptly to this court any deviations from their complete privacy until they have reached a verdict, so help you God? Each of these Oaths, of course, is merely declaratory of what lawyers and judges under the English and American systems of law have taken for granted for hundreds of years. Spoken or unspoken, every judge and every officer of the court, the clerk, the bailiff, the reporter, and, of course, the lawyers have always had a solemn obligation to protect the complete and absolute privacy of jury room deliberations. This concept of the sanctity and utter privacy ol juries has been carried to the point that it appears to be the general rule that most courts will not even receive the affidavit of a juror or outsider after trial to impeach the verdict because of misconduct of the jury. This is not the universal rule, but it is clearly the majority rule, The records are replete with cases in which eavesdropping on jury deliberations by newspapeft *.„-„ „.. „l.l,„— r, 1 . . . It .Finn 1)1111*' typical, a reporter concealed hi porters or others has been pi for contempt. In one case " J> tacts X( tern taint Piov tions resol P"bl ol re Were hand the i or i,- Pace by bi i lees <>fm Tl Sic man ll„-l, hum- perfe rate , or U] subje -;< \ teiiti( the s ii'rns Lei Far I,, yelop into in a closet and took shorthand /J which he later published. Al*"] he had made no effort to influen^ verdict and his presence was not: known to the jury, the (Texas) " in imposing a sentence, said: ors r(. This indefensible conduct of the ( jnt() ^ porter . . . was a flagrant conU'"'^ -j., the court, and a most reprehensiohij , vasion of the precincts of justice, * j ' I should have been . . . promptly JJ j<>lln( severely punished by the trial "^ he j,, (6SAV. 544.) a tw„ \ It is possibly of some sign'*1. '" d,-, that the jurv svstem as we Wj ' "mi lias been one of the (listing0^ (l"' w judicial features of the two c0«jj plate -England and the United st'\ """ns in which individual liberties^. . Thi rights, if you please, and red11' ''"'Mi the worth and dignity of tllC " ' vidual have had the lonj!^ m'"""I' strongest standing. This n of the worth and importance | ^"h individual has historically in hand with the willingness '» | ''" in these two systems to truSM.. '« private disputes and even "'p'(.„,,,, and liberties to the decision l».|j t( n| of tlrcir neighbors and fellow'.^eif^;. The Anglo-Saxon system ol I and our own — have rcjectc tion that trial of basic issue tli-'ivs,,,, 0,„ rfVproj,, and wrong is the province "'«lv-a\- science, sociology, or of ] * of We —~—~> ««- »/» — have always proline" j Tl igni t meted out by twelve ordinary *^ presided over by one man. "q "ll ably an expert in the law. ^^.M?, tution, of course, affirmatively » I \, is Fobum News, Frhn"1 j|
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n002_048.jpg