The Unreliable Peer: A Seattle Critique of Jury Bias
An 1878 editorial laments that the 'glory of English law' is being tarnished by jurors who prioritize class bias over evidence.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
We find imperfections everywhere in nature. Yet, many glaring defects may be corrected, and many flaws in our institutions obliterated by patient attention. Among these may be mentioned the system of trial by jury. It is the greatest privilege of every American citizen that he cannot be affected either in person, property, or his rights, except upon the verdict of twelve of his peers. Yet, the system has its imperfections. It must be observed that the twelve are not always 'good men, honest and true.' The peer of the party litigant does not always exercise a judgment unwarped by prejudice. There is a natural tendency in our own country to 'always take the side of the weak dog in the fight,' no matter what the merits of the case. Thus, it has been frequently observed here that where the defendant in a suit has been wealthy, and consequently unpopular with the masses, and the plaintiff poor but popular—or vice versa—the suit has been given to the poor man by a jury of the latter's peers, irrespective of the just merits of the case. A case of this kind was tried in this city recently, and a verdict brought in in favor of the 'poor man.' Shortly after, one of the jurors was questioned on the street by a prominent citizen as to how the case resulted, whereupon the former replied: 'Yes, we are through with it, and by God, we got a lick in on him this time,' meaning the defendant. Was such a man fit to sit on a jury?
“There is a natural tendency on the part of the great majority of men to 'always take the side of the weak dog in the fight,' no matter what the merits of the case.”
This 1878 editorial captures a perennial tension in the American justice system: the conflict between legal impartiality and the social instinct to act as a check on wealth and power. It highlights that the struggle to define the 'peer'—and the fear of biased jurors—is a cornerstone of civic discourse that remains as heated today as it was in the days of frontier Seattle.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.