TO THE LAW ACADEMY OF PHILADELPHIA:
As the Committee of your Faculty requested to examine and report upon the
essays submitted for the Annual Prize offered by the Law Academy, we desire to
inform you that we have carefully read and compared the two essays which have
been placed in our hands, one submitted under the nom de plume
"Lawyer," and the other under that of "American," and that
the result of our examination is as follows: —
1. We find that both essays are in form and substance excellent and very
creditable to the Academy.
2. We find that, of the two, the essay signed "Lawyer" is the
better, and evinces the greater labor and research and is worthy of the prize
3. We, therefore, recommend that the prize offered by the Academy be awarded
to the writer of the essay signed "Lawyer," whoever he may be.
Although in strictness, it does not fall within our province, we feel that
we ought not to omit this opportunity of expressing our approval of the subject
chosen for this year's prize essay. Not only is it extremely interesting, from
an historical standpoint, but it is one of great practical importance. Since
Mr. Furman Sheppard prepared his "Manual for Grand Juries" in 1875,
of which but a few copies are now in existence, no work of any importance,
which deals in a practical way with the Grand Jury System as it is in force in
this Commonwealth, has been published. The essay to which we have recommended
the award of this prize contains a vast amount of valuable information on the
subject and with a few slight alterations and additions (incorporating the
points decided by the Superior Court in the case of Commonwealth vs.
Brown, which was decided after these essays were handed in) might be made a
useful handbook for those concerned with practice in the Criminal Courts, and
we suggest that the Academy, if it sees its way clear to do so, take steps to
have it printed for the use of the Bar.
CHAS. Y. AUDENRIED, ROBERT N. WILLSON, ABRAHAM M. BEITLER.
Philadelphia, May 11, 1904.
THIS essay was originally
written with particular reference to the law relating to the grand jury in
England, Pennsylvania and the United States Courts. After the committee by whom
it was read had reported favorably upon it, the suggestion was made that its
scope be enlarged so as to make the work applicable to all of the states. This
suggestion was communicated to Judge Audenried, the Chairman of the Committee,
and received his approval.
In effecting this change it has been found necessary to make few alterations
in the text. So far as the common law principles relating to the grand jury are
in force in the various states, the law and the decisions thereon are generally
uniform. In such states as have adopted a code of criminal procedure, the
common law principles relating to the grand jury constitute an important part
of the code, and the decisions thereunder, in such instances, will be found to
be in harmony with the decisions at the common law. Only where the common law
has been superseded by statute do we find any material conflict in the
decisions, and this is due, in large measure, to differences in the
constitutions or statutes of the various states. By adding the citations of the
state court decisions in the foot notes, with occasional additions to the text
where the rulings of the courts may be regarded as of local application only,
the author trusts the work has been made of more general utility than when
originally submitted to the committee.
While the subject of juries has received careful attention from legal
writers, and within the scope of their work the law as to grand juries has been
considered fully, sufficient attention has not been given to the historical
growth of the grand jury. In this essay the origin, history and development of
the grand jury have been, therefore, considered at length. The history of the
grand jury is closely interwoven with that of the petit jury, while the
judicial records during its infancy are very meagre and confusing.
In tracing its historical development, much must be left to surmise, and
this necessarily has resulted in conflicting opinions. Where doubt has arisen,
the author has endeavored to present the reasons upon which his conclusions are
based, and in all cases has sought to treat his subject in the light of the
conditions which he conceives existed at the period of which he treats. To
present the matter as clearly as possible, the method has been adopted of
showing the character of trial awarded with relation to the manner of
instituting the prosecution. By so doing, it becomes possible to trace the
development of the grand jury separate and apart from the petit jury and thus
the likelihood of confusing the action of these bodies in the early stages of
their existence is in large measure avoided.
The author desires to express his thanks to Carlyle H. Ross, Esq., of the
Philadelphia Bar, for his valuable assistance in the preparation of the index
to this book.
He also acknowledges his appreciation of the criticism and suggestions of
John M. Gest, Esq., and his obligation to Luther E. Hewitt, Esq., Librarian of
the Law Association, for his interest in the preparation of this work.
G. J. E., JR.
March 20, 1906.
Text Version | Next |