2IO UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDIES 



This is enough to show that the unit rule has been greatly modified 

 by the countries of the old world. It has also been partly abandoned 

 by the following American States: 



STATES IN WHICH VERDICTS NEED NOT BE UNANIMOUS 



Arizona — Three-fourths in civil and misdemeanor cases. '91, chap. 5. 



California — Three-fourths in civil cases. C. C. P. '97, § 618. 



Colorado — Three-fourths in civil cases. '99 chap. in. Unconstitutional. 28 



Col. 129. 

 Idaho — Three-fourths in civil cases. Five-sixths majority in misdemeanors. Const. 



art. 1, § 7. '91, p. 165. 

 Kentucky — Three-fourths in civil cases. Statutes '94, § 2268. 

 Louisiana— Three-fourths in crimes not capital. Const. § 116. 

 Montana — Two-thirds in crimes not felonies. P. C. § 2142. Two-thirds in civil 



actions. C. C. P. § 1084. 

 Minnesota — Legislature may provide for verdict by five-sixths of jury after six hours' 



deliberation. Const, art. 1, § 4. 

 Missouri — Three-fourths in courts of record: two-thirds in other courts. Civil 



cases. '99, p. 381. 

 Nevada — Three-fourths in civil cases. C. L. '00, § 3270. 

 South Dakota — Three-fourths in civil cases. Ann. S. '99, § 6268. 

 Utah — Three-fourths in civil cases. Const, art. 1, § 10. 

 Washington — Ten of twelve jurors may render verdict in civil cases. Ballinger's 



S- § Son- 

 Wyoming — Three-fourths in civil cases. R. S. '99. § 3651. 



Some of the leading arguments for this reform of the jury system are 

 given below. The principal one is, of course, the claim that the jury 

 as at present constituted gives one man too much power. 



Everyone is familiar with instances where one man has been able to 

 set at naught the opinions of eleven by refusing to agree with them in a 

 jury decision. It is difficult for two men to see things alike, and it is 

 still more difficult for twelve men to come to the same conclusion. This 

 is well known to lawyers. They have agents whose business it is to 

 look up jurors and learn their mental characteristics and opinions on 

 various subjects. In this way they are able to know whether or not 

 they want these particular jurymen to sit on their cases. They know 

 that one strongly prejudiced juror is enough to decide the case his way 

 or else bring about a new trial by a disageement. It has been pointed 



