2l6 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDIES 



the whole matter they will not feel justified in taking this responsibility. 

 Under a rule by which the majority decides, it is clear that the indi- 

 vidual juror would not be likely to give the case so much attention. 

 We are all aware of the comfortable feeling that comes over us as soon 

 as we know that some other person will vote as we do. Our minds 

 are at once relieved from the exertion of finding more arguments in 

 support of our position. On the contrary when standing alone in our 

 opinion, we feel the amount of energy we must spend in finding evidence 

 to convince others that we are in the right. This is precisely what hap- 

 pens in the jury room. While the trial is going on each juror feels the 

 necessity of paying close attention lest he be the one that will have the 

 others against him and thus be compelled to produce the reasons for 

 his position. It seems quite clear that the unit rule in this way tends 

 to emphasize the individual juror's responsibility. 



The principal argument against the abolition of the unit rule is that 

 it is not a matter of very much importance. This is the leading argu- 

 ment that was made in the New York constitutional convention of 1894, 

 where the question was discussed somewhat, though not at very great 

 length. It is said that not many disagreements of jurors are such that 

 they would be prevented by the adoption of the unit rule. When a 

 jury disagrees the vote usually stands either six to six, seven to five, 

 eight to four, or nine to three. The cases are not many when one or 

 two men hang the jury. 



Again it has been shown that out of the whole number of jury trials 

 the disagreements of the jury are comparatively few. Of 1,104 J UI 7 

 cases tried in the superior court of the City of New York, there were 

 but 35 disagreements. The Supreme Court in the first department of 

 the State of New York, which includes the city, tried from 1889 to 1893, 

 3,460 jury cases. Of these there were but 22 in which the jury dis- 

 agreed. It seems as though there is a mistake in the number of dis- 

 agreements, it is so small. Yet these are the figures given by the clerk 

 of that court, and presented by Mr. Truax to the constitutional con- 

 vention. From these figures it is clear that the question of the abolition 

 of the unit rule is not as important as it might seem from reading the 

 arguments that have been presented in its favor. 



