Jury Selection
In the previous blog, ‘The Maguire Trial – Part 1,’ a sting operation effected by a political party unveiled vote tampering in the Queensland State Election of 1950.
The subsequent trials of Bernard Maguire ended in deadlock. He was neither guilty nor found innocent, although the Prosecutor declared ‘nolle prosequi.’ It was the only case at the time (except capitol cases) where a person was tried three times. No public service inquiry was held into the administration of the State Electoral Office, and State Cabinet lifted the suspension on Bernard Maguire’s pay and leave. He was under consideration by Cabinet to return to his role as Queensland State Electoral Officer when fate intervened.
Jury selection in 1950s
This blog is not about the guilt or innocence of Bernard Maguire but an attempt to understand the workings of a jury in a time when only men served.
Retired Inspector Les Bardwell served as a witness for the Prosecution at all three of Maguire’s trials. As the forensic scientist attached to Brisbane’s CIB, his testimony was integral to the prosecution’s case. Police were severely hampered because they were not allowed to reference their notes during a trial. Bardwell typed and memorised 170 pages of evidence that he called upon during days of non-stop questioning by barristers, Dan Casey and Tom Barry. He refers them as ‘two of the most formidable criminal barristers of the day,’ in his essay titled ‘Queensland Electoral Forgery,’ but later uses a police colloquialism when he said, that they (the barristers) never ‘knocked a chip off me.’
The essay also describes the selection of jury panels in the 1950s. Let’s imagine the ‘twelve angry men’ from the film, living in a post-war era that led to a cold war, coming together from all walks of life, in a highly publicised trial that had at its centre, the contentious subject of politics. Surely sparks flew… and would justice be served?
A jury list consisting of up to 48 names, depending on the charge, was displayed in the vicinity of the Court. It was open to public scrutiny and was normally viewed by interested persons. The names, addresses, occupations, and ages of the individuals on the jury list were displayed to the public.
As was the practice of the day, the names on the jury list were placed on individual cards and then dropped into a barrel that was mounted on a horizontal axis. The barrel was cranked several times by an Officer of the Court, then a random card was extracted from the side door of the barrel. The name on the selected card was then read out aloud so that the potential juror could hear their name being called.
Most jurors wore a ‘bewildered countenance’, Bardwell said. They entered the court corridor to meet the awaiting Bailiff who stood by the entrance to the jury seats. Suddenly they were given one of two commands, either a ‘challenge’ or ‘stand by,’ or they were accepted by both the Prosecution and the Defence and allowed to proceed to the Bailiff who had a bible in his outstretched hand for the juror to take the oath:
‘You shall well and truly try and true to deliverance make between our sovereign lady The Queen and the prisoner at the bar whom you shall have in charge and a true verdict give according to the evidence,’ and he then says to the Juror, ‘So say help me God.’ The juror repeated ‘So help me God,’ while holding the Bible in his right hand.
If ‘challenged’ or ‘stood by,’ the potential juror in most cases concluded that they didn’t ‘measure up.’ Although instructed to leave the courtroom, the candidate still had to remain within the hearing of the Court.
The Defence Counsel had unlimited ‘challenges’ in the first round to all jurors until all forty-eight names were exhausted. Likewise, the Crown Prosecution had unlimited ‘standbys’. On the second round, both the Defence Counsel and the Crown Prosecution had a limited number of challenges and standbys. On the third round, if the jury had not reached the required twelve jurists, the jurors were selected as their name was called from the barrel. The reason for various ‘challenges’ and ‘standbys’ was an endeavour by the protagonists to select jurors who would be sympathetic to their respective causes.
When all members of the jury that had been selected and were seated, the Judge addressed them with this instruction, ‘Gentlemen, select your Foreman.’ Having attended literally hundreds of jury selections, Bardwell found it highly amusing to see the look of the bewilderment on the faces of the jury. These people who had never met before, would turn to each other and by some unknown means, select the foreman who was usually as the bewildered as the rest of the jury panel.
In the Maguire Trial era, just as there were no female barristers, there were no female jurists… but there’s always an exception.
Next week: The Maguire Trial Part 3 – Jury reform
Queensland Police Museum acknowledges ‘No Stone Unturned’, a collection of works by former Detective Inspector Les Bardwell, who preferred to be known as a field forensic scientist. Les believed that it was important to have first-hand contact with the aftermath of crime and violence. This story was written by Museum Assistant Debra Austin.
The Police Museum is open 9 am to 4 pm Monday to Thursday and 10 am to 3 pm on the last Sunday of the month (Feb – Nov) and is located on the Ground Flood of Police Headquarters, 200 Roma Street, Brisbane.
Email contact: museum@police.qld.gov.au
“FROM the VAULT – The Maguire Trial Part 2” by the Queensland Police Service is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (BY) 2.5 Australia Licence. Permissions may be available beyond the scope of this licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/legalcode