Anglo-Saxon and Roman CriminalJurisprudence. THE MEXICAN JURY SYSTEM.
But the force of example, and the great credit which Anglo-Saxon institutions have attained in the world, on account of their respect for individual rights, have induced some of the American nations of Latin ori. gin to adopt the jury system, and we have done so in Mexico. Seiior Mariscal, our present Secretary of State, who lived in the United States from 1863 to 1877, as Secre tary of the Legation up to 1867, and after wards as Minister from Mexico to Washing ton — and who is an eminent jurist, a thor ough student, and a careful observer — made a special study of the jury system in the United States, and when he went home and became Secretary of Justice under President Juarez's administration, he estab lished, in 1869, the jury system in the Fed eral District of Mexico for criminal cases, changing it somewhat, so as to adapt it to the peculiar conditions of the Mexican character. He provided, for instance, that a majority of the eleven jurors composing our jury should render a verdict, while under the Anglo-Saxon system the unanimous vote of the twelve jurors is required. It was provided, besides, by the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Federal District and Ter ritories issued in 1880, with a view to prevent the failure of justice, that if, in the opinion of the presiding judge, the verdict were clearly against the evidence, he should so report to the higher court, with a motion to set that verdict aside, and if the higher court should sustain his opinion, a new trial should be granted, unless eight jurors had concurred in the verdict, in which case it should be final and could not be set aside. These pro visions were somewhat changed by the Act of June 24, 1891, which was incorporated in the new code of criminal procedure of July 6, 1891, which requires that the jury shall be composed of nine jurors, that a majority sustaining judgments in civil cases apply with tenfold force in criminal cases.
4i3
of them shall render a verdict, and the de cision of the jury shall be final if given by seven votes. Even with all these alterations in the system, I have seen cases in Mexico where criminals have gone unpunished, be cause through the eloquence of their attor neys, the jury has been influenced in their favor. Under the system of jurisprudence pre vailing in the Federal District of Mexico all the preliminary proceedings in a crimi nal trial, such as the examination of the accused, the taking of testimony, etc., takes place before the judge who presides over such proceedings without a jury; when this has been completed and the case is ready to be submitted, the jury is empaneled and the evidence is read to it, as set forth in the record already formed; the prosecuting attorney then presents the charges, the de fense is heard, and the witnesses of both parties are examined and cross-examined; thereupon the jury renders its verdict ad judging the accused either innocent or guilty, following substantially the practice under the common law of England and of the United States. In most of the Mexican States prevails the old Spanish system of criminal jurisprudence. THE OLD SPANISH SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE.
I often hear asserted in this country that the proceedings under the Roman law are secret, and that the accused does not know what the witnesses have testified against him. This assertion is entirely in correct, and often leads to very grave mis understandings. One of the difficulties that the Spanish-American countries have to contend with at Washington, in cases where citizens of the United States are tried by the local judges in any of those countries, is the great difference between their criminal legis lation and procedure and the system pre vailing in this country.
