At 9:54 AM 11/8/1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

At 8:20 AM -0500 11/8/96, Jim Ray wrote:

...

been decided and appealed, because of this very possibility. I am already concerned that an ambitious U.S. Attorney, using Alta Vista, could attempt to argue that "cypherpunk terrorists have been secretly trying to subtly influence Kozinski's thinking, and that therefore he should be removed from the case in favor of some judge who has no clue whatsoever about the 'Net, encryption, anonymous remailers, etc." [I am sure the argument wouldn't be put quite that way <g> but that's what the U.S. Attorney would mean.] There is now a judge with some idea of these issues who will IMNSHO probably be fair to "our" side. It is a rare opportunity, and I don't want to "blow it."

A valid fear, given the times we live in.

If jurors can be dismissed for knowing "too much" about the O,J. case--knowing how to _read_ ensures this--then we are probably fast-approaching the point where judges are recused (or whatever the word is) from hearing cases where they've had any education whatsover on.

(An exaggeration, of course.)

This issue has been discussed recently by a prominent author. "The men who murdered Virginia's [The city in Nevada. -- ph] original twenty-six cemetary occupants were never punished. Why? Because Alfred the Great, when he invented trial by jury, and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things would be so entirely changed that unless he rose from the grave and altered the jury plan to meet the emergency, it would prove the most ingenious and infallible agency for {\it defeating} justice that human wisdom could contrive. For how could he imagine that we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we would go no using his candle clock after we had invented chronometers? In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he could easily find a jury of honest, intelligent men who had not heard of the case they were called to try - but in our day of telegraph and newspapers his plan compels us to swear in juries composed of fools and rascals, because the system rigidly excludes honest men and men of brains. "I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B, a good citizen, in the most wanton an cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb an idiotic talked about it. A jury list was made out, and Mrs. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America: "`Have you heard of this homicide?' "`Yes.' "`Have you held conversations on the subject?' "`Yes.' "`Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?' "`Yes.' "`Have you read newspaper accounts of it?' "`Yes.' "`We do not want you.' "A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz-mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict withou;t prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice. "When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was empaneled - a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about, nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sagebrush, and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beerhouse politicians, three barkeepers, two ranchers who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing. "The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect? "The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honest, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity, and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a {/it thousand} years ago. In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence, and probity swears that the testimony given under solmen oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper reports based on mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would be far safer in his hands than theirs. Why could not the jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty an equal chance with fools and miscreants? Is it right to show the present favoritism to one class of men and inflict a disability on another, in a land whose boast is that all its citizens are free and equal? I am a candidate for the legislature. I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated - every effort I make to save the country `misses fire.'"

From "Roughing It" by Mark Twain, Chapter XLVIII.

Peter Hendrickson ph@netcom.com