But while admitting its theoretic value as a bulwark of liberty, the modern assailant of the jury brushes the consideration aside by asserting that the system has “broken down” and “degenerated into a farce.”

Let us now see how much of a farce it is.  If four times out of five a judge rendered decisions that met with general approval, he would probably be accounted a highly satisfactory judge.  Now, out of every one hundred indicted prisoners brought to the bar for trial, probably fifteen ought to be acquitted if prosecuted impartially and in accordance with the strict rules of evidence.  In the year 1910 the juries of New York County convicted in sixty-six per cent of the cases before them.  If we are to test fairly the efficiency of the system, we must deduct from the thirty-four acquittals remaining the fifteen acquittals which were justifiable.  By so doing we shall find that in the year 1910 the New York County juries did the correct thing in about eighty-one cases out of every hundred.  This is a high percentage of efficiency.* Is it likely that any judge would have done much better?
       _______________________________________

* The following table gives the yearly percentages of convictions and acquittals by verdict in New York County since 1901: 

Number        number
year     convictions   acquittals  convictions   acquittals
by verdict   by verdict   per cent      per cent

1901........551...........344..........62............38

1902........419...........349..........55............45
1903........485...........307..........61............39
1904........495...........357..........58............42
1905........489...........299..........62............38
1906........464...........246..........65............35
1907........582...........264..........68............32
1908........649...........301..........62............38
1909........463...........235..........66............34
1910........649...........325..........66............34
_______________________________________

After a rather long experience as a prosecutor, in which he conducted many hundreds of criminal cases, the writer believes that the ordinary New York City jury finds a correct general verdict four times out of five.  As to talesmen in other localities he has no knowledge or reliable information.  It seems hardly possible, however, that juries in other parts of the United States could be more heterogeneous or less intelligent than those before which he formed his conclusions.  Of course, jury judgments are sometimes flagrantly wrong.  But there are many verdicts popularly regarded as examples of lawlessness which, if examined calmly and solely from the point of view of the evidence, would be found to be the reasonable acts of honest and intelligent juries.