People v. Conboy

Criminal Law—Murder—Long Deliberation op Jury—Request por Further Instructions—Prejudicial Remarks op Judge—Opinion op Guilt Intimated.—Upon a prosecution for murder and conviction of manslaughter, where after long deliberation by the jury they requested further instructions, which were given, it was prejudicial error for the judge further to remark to them, “I suggest to you that there is no reason why twelve honest, intelligent^ reasonable men should not reach a conclusion in this case, and I am surprised that you have not done so already,” and “Now, go out and do your duty,” as intimating that the evidence in the case warranted a verdict of guilty, and that the jury should so find.

lb.—Reliance op Juries on Fairness and Correct Views op Judges—■ Duty op Judge.—It is well known that juries rely with great confidence upon the integrity and fairness of judges, and the correctness of their views; and for this reason a judge should never throw the weight of his judicial position into a ease either for or against the defendant, unless satisfied that the evidence is insufficient to justify any conviction, in which case it is his duty so to advise the jury. But where it has not so advised them, to intimate the opinion of the judge that the jury ought to agree is to intimate his opinion that the defendant is guilty, and that they should” so find.

Id.—Practical Decision op Cause by Judge.—A judge who intimates his opinion on the facts to the jury, of which they are the exclusive judges, practically decides the cause in violation of the constitution, while appearing to avoid the responsibility of such a decision.