—From “Gentlemen of the Jury” by Frederick Orin Bartlett, from the December 5, 1925, issue of The Saturday Evening Post
It was a battle of wits between [prosecution and defense], with a defendant appearing scarcely more than a pawn in the game. We of the jury appreciated this contest, for it relieved the tedium of much that had become monotonous repetition; but never for a moment did this swerve us from the more fundamental issue of the prisoner’s guilt or innocence.
It was interesting to me to note how stubbornly these 12 men, chosen at random, clung to this one question through all the technicalities and through all the stratagems and wiles practiced by counsel.
Furthermore they did this in face of what might have been considered personal prejudices. All these cases were violations of the [prohibition law], of which many of the jurors did not approve. And yet every man took the position that so long as this act was in force, violators of it when caught should suffer the penalty. Their only concern was to determine whether sufficient proof was offered of an illegal sale.
It is surprising how, through all the obstacles put in its path, the truth will trickle through to the mind of the average juryman and how receptive to this truth he is.
This was particularly noticeable in the way the final harangues of both counsels were received. Upon this speech the distinguished attorney for the defense spent his best efforts. Feeling had run high at times during the trial, and the prosecuting attorney had made several stinging criticisms of the sharp practice pursued by his brother lawyer. It played no part in our deliberations and did not influence, so far as I could see, a single man, which is contrary to the best traditions of fiction.
This article is featured in the November/December 2025 issue of The Saturday Evening Post. Subscribe to the magazine for more art, inspiring stories, fiction, humor, and features from our archives.
Become a Saturday Evening Post member and enjoy unlimited access. Subscribe now
