I9I4.] PSYCHOLOGY OF JURORS AND JURIES. 813 



care to be treated as though he had not the brains to see the bearings 

 of the testimony as it came from the mouths of the witnesses. 



The court is quite right in sustaining objections to much ex- 

 traneous matter that clogs the proceedings and overloads the jurors. 

 But it is questionable whether the loss of time by a large majority 

 of these objections does not tend to irritate jurors who are rightly 

 jealous of their time and critical of a system which compels its loss 

 without corresponding gain to them. Much of the matter ruled out 

 or admitted after a battle between attorneys goes for what it is worth 

 to the jury and not a little of it is without effect on the juror's mind 

 either way, except as a general irritant. Whatever is evidence to 

 his mind is evidence and willy-nilly his mind is affected by it. To 

 a juror with imagination and the gift of interpretation evidence is 

 often felt as atmosphere and is much more than the dry bones of 

 admitted testimony. 



For instance, in a trial in which the verdict turned chiefly on the 

 motive or purpose of a paper engaging to purchase and pay for a 

 large block of stock on a certain date, the lack of frankness and 

 the constant evasiveness in one of the witnesses so strongly dis- 

 credited him in the minds of at least half the jury that they virtually 

 agreed that they would not employ such a man in their own busi- 

 nesses. Indeed the other half of the jury did not defend him. As 

 this witness substantially agreed with and was on terms of more or 

 less intimacy with the four others who told the same story the whole 

 five were greatly weakened as witnesses. This was evidence un- 

 avoidable in coloring the minds of jurors, although not " evidence " 

 on the record. 



Again, in the case of a woman suing for damages as the alleged 

 result of a fall by a defective brick pavement, more than one juror 

 believed that the defense lost an opportunity in not bringing out in 

 cross-examination the height and slope of the heels of her shoes — 

 as these might have been more responsible for her tumble than the 

 pavement itself. But as these jurors did not know anything about 

 it — nothing having been said in court about it — they of course did 

 not openly consider it. But the point is, that even such a case no 

 one knows how far such a passing thought gives cast to the mind 



