| 177THE JUDGES VERDIOT.
No criminal case in recent years has
excited such intense interest as the
Sheedy case, which closed yesterday with
the verdict of the jury. All through the
four months it has held the attention of
the public, it was the chief topic of con-
versation and speculation. Under the
ruling of the court that McFarlnda's con-
fession could be considered against
Mrs. Sheedy, and in the light of the
little evidence adduced against her, it
was almost a foregone conclusion that
she would be acqultted, as there was
nothing left to connect her with the crime.
During all the twenty four days which
the trail lasted she showed un unbroken
front, and her composure was almost be-
yound conceptions. At the close, women-
like, she broke down; but fortitude
won for her friendship and good wishes.
So far as she is concerned the verdict of not
guilty is accepted as satis-
factory by those who have watched the
case and by the great majority of the
public. But there is no concealing the
fact that the verdict as to McFarland is
generally condemned, The jury may
have followed the strict letter of the law
as to considering the confession in the
evidence, and while their verdict ex-
honerates McFarland from any punish-
ment for the crime, it does not remove the
stain place upon his name by his
own confession, thrice repeated. The
fact that his confession contained asser-
tions almost beyond belief undoubtedly
discredited it with the jury, who, from
all reports, had a rather indefinite idea of the
matter from the start to finish.
The verdict as to McFarland has again
called attention to the pecullar uncer-
tainty and Inconsistency of our boasted
jury system. It is notorious that jury
verdicats in general afford no guarantee-
of justice, but are as apt to defeat as to
enforce the legitimate demands of the
law. We are told that the rule which
requires a unanimen conclusion on the
part of twelve jurymen is the best possi-
ble assurance of the correct and satisfac-
tory action; but every intelligent citizen
knows that experience is constantly re-
futing this theory. The unanimous ver-
dicts are broughts about for the most part
by means and under conditions which
mock the idea of the proper deliberation and
compromises, and compromises of justice
are once both illogical and indefinte.
Very often, the apprent agreement of
the twelve does not represent the sincere
and exact opinion of a single one of the
number ; in order to reach a basis of una-
nimity, they severally surrender their
right of indivdual judgment and con-
sent to something which really violates
their concienclous veiws of the case. | 177THE JUDGES VERDIOT.
No criminal case in recent years has
excited such intense interest as the
Sheedy case, which closed yesterday with
the verdict of the jury. All through the
four months it has held the attention of
the public, it was the chief topic of con-
versation and speculation. Under the
ruling of the court that McFarlnda's con-
fession could be considered against
Mrs. Sheedy, and in the light of the
little evidence adduced against her, it
was almost a foregone conclusion that
she would be acqultted, as there was
nothing left to connect her with the crime.
During all the twenty four days which
the trail lasted she showed un unbroken
front, and her composure was almost be-
yound conceptions. At the close, women-
like, she broke down; but fortitude
won for her friendship and good wishes.
So far as she is concerned the verdict of not
guilty is accepted as satis-
factory by those who have watched the
case and by the great majority of the
public. But there is no concealing the
fact that the verdict as to McFarland is
generally condemned, The jury may
have followed the strict letter of the law
as to considering the confession in the
evidence, and while their verdict ex-
honerates McFarland from any punish-
ment for the crime, it does not remove the
stain place upon his name by his
own confession, thrice repeated. The
fact that his confession contained asser-
tions almost beyond belief undoubtedly
discredited it with the jury, who, from
all reports, had a rather indefinite idea of the
matter from the start to finish.
The verdict as to McFarland has again
called attention to the pecullar uncer-
tainty and Inconsistency of our boasted
jury system. It is notorious that jury
verdicats in general afford no guarantee-
of justice, but are as apt to defeat as to
enforce the legitimate demands of the
law. We are |
