The short answer is, from the late 1800s until its abolition in the 1970s,
the Sheriff's jury was primarily an exclusive social club
for rich Manhattanites.  It had a largely nominal role in the judicial
system, and members were exempted from service on ordinary grand, petit, and
special juries.  For the most part, it served primarily as a status symbol,
and the member of the panel threw controversial yearly banquets, where the
flask was probably awarded as a souvenir.

The best source is probably the *The Sheriff's Jury of New York
County*(1976) by the New
York Commission of Investigation.  It might also be profitable to take a
look at *The Sheriff's Jury and the Bicentennial, July 30, 1976 *(1976) by
Joseph T. P. Sullivan, though I haven't personally looked over that source.


The following is awkwardly cut and pasted from a draft of a law school paper
mouldering on my hard drive.  Please pardon the less-than-ideal editing; my
bedtime is rapidly approaching.  Frequent references to the above mentioned
source have been omitted for my convenience:

... In New York State, [Sheriff's juries] were impaneled to deal with
inquests to assess damages arising from defendant's default in personal
injury or property cases, competency hearings, to ascertain damages
sustained from temporary injunctions which were later determined to be
wrongfully granted and to ascertain damages to third parties resulting from
improperly issued warrants of attachment.  Panels were appointed on an
annual basis, and holding a place on the panel exempted members from petit
or grand jury summons.  They're best known as a means for wealthy
Manhattanites to avoid service on grand and petit juries.

Between the founding and 1976, the New York County sheriff's jury slowly
evolved from a functional element of the jury system to a vestigial relic of
the common law to an open scandal.  The sheriff appointed three panels of
150 individuals each, of which only a small portion were called to serve
when the panels were at their busiest.  By the time sheriffs' juries were
abolished, statutes had shifted most of the jury's responsibilities to other
parties and only a single work session had been called in the previous four
years, which lasted less than a day.  As early as 1916, the institution's
status as a means to avoid jury service was sufficiently well known that it
was casually mentioned in popular fiction and sporadic efforts to eliminate
the institution prior to the 1970s cited anti-democratic implications of
allowing a class of citizens to evade jury service.

Appointment to the New York County Sheriff's Jury was prestigious: its
membership rolls were composed of well known members of the business
community and members of old money families.  Membership was attained
through the recommendation of one of the heads of the three panels.  Even
after they were granted the right to serve on juries, no woman was ever
recommended for membership.  When the Sheriff's Jury came under fire for
this seemingly broad omission, in the latter half of the twentieth century,
the three panel heads and the County Clerk (whose office had replaced the
eponymous sheriff as the official responsible for appointing members) denied
any discriminatory intent and explained that no women had ever volunteered.
Criticism of the lack of minorities was addressed by seating six African
Americans after what was described as a "concerted effort".[3]

By custom, rather than law, members of the panels paid substantial dues
($370 per member by 1976), which were pooled and used to fund elaborate
dinners, fund public works projects favored by the County Clerk and provide
expensive gifts to public officials.  The latter practice ultimately
provoked the backlash that led to the investigation and dissolution of the
institution.

In 1974, Manhattan District Attorney Richard Kuh, embroiled in a difficult
re-election bid, demanded that the Manhattan Sheriff's Jury quashed and
henceforth be drawn randomly from the ordinary jury lists, as the Brooklyn
Sheriff's Jury was.  Kuh backed up his demand with threats to convene a
grand jury to investigate the possibility of bribery of public officials and
official malfeasance. Kuh was immediately denounced by Justice Owen
McGivern, on behalf of the First Department Appellate Division, who
described the maneuver as "demagogic," and wrote the despite what
*Times*describes as "frequent legislative attempts to repeal the law
mandating its
existence" it has, "displayed the indestructibility of the pyramids".  McGivern
argued that only the legislature could alter or abolish the sheriff's jury,
while Kuh argued that nothing in the governing statute mandated that the
customary, boy's club form be employed. [4]  The Sheriff's Jury did not hold
its annual dinner that year, presumably in order to avoid the risk
of indictments. [5]

Kuh lost his re-election bid, but drew enough attention to the Sheriff's
Jury that the an independent commission was appointed to make
recommendations to the legislature as to whether to reform the institution.
The commission found that the body rarely meets in its official capacity,
and that were it to do so, its exclusion of women and minorities would make
its rulings unconstitutional.  It vindicated Kuh's interpretation of the
statute over McGivern's and argued that Appellate Division's failure to
reconstitute the sheriff's jury in a randomly drawn fashion constituted "a
continuing refusal to accept its statutory responsibility".

The committee noted that while the jury considered the donation of gifts to
public officials to be proper so long as they were collective gifts of the
jury rather than individual gifts from the members, two of the three panel
foremen resisted disclosing their panels' financial statements.  While it
took pains to note that it made no suggestion of personal impropriety in the
County Clerk's solicitation of money from a panel of his appointees to fund
favored pet projects, the committee suggested that "the appearance of
impropriety … was sufficiently problematic to warrant the termination of
this new practice."

Ultimately, the committee recommended that sheriffs' juries be abolished by
statute, and that until such a measure could be taken, the jury be reduced
to 25 members, the remaining members transferred to petit or grand jury
panels, and the clerk be directed to draw any future sheriff's juries
impartially and in the same fashion as grand and petit jurors.  These
recommendations remained unimplemented until 1979, though the public
disapproval for the institution was such that a the 1977 Jury Reform Bill
received a number of comments criticizing it for failing to abolish the
sheriff's jury. [6]

[1] *See* George Barr McCutcheon, *The Light that Lies*, MCCLURE'S MAGAZINE,
XLVI:5 (1916) at 9.  Describing his protagonist's attempts to evade jury
service, McCutcheon writes: "Others suggested that he get on the 'sheriff's
jury,' a quaintly distinguished method of serving the commonwealth in that
the members perform their duties as citizens in such a luxurious and
expensive way that they never appear in the newspapers as 'twelve men good
and true,' but as contributors to somewhat compulsory festivities in which
justice is done to the inner man alone."
[2] *Sheriffs' Juries*, N.Y. Times, Mar. 12, 1945, 19.
[3] State of New York Commission of Investigation at 3; *Kuh Demands End of
Sheriff's Jury* New York Times, Oct. 18, 1974, p. 45.
[4] *Kuh Demands End of Sheriff's Jury* [supra Note 3]; *Kuh Says Judge
Lacked 'Candor'*, N.Y. Times, October 22, 1974, 90.
[5]  *Dropping of Sheriff's Jury Urged*, N.Y. Times, December 12, 1976, 78.
[6]  *New Way Asked to Choose Panel for Sheriff Jury*, N. Y.Times, B1, April
3, 1979;  L.1977, c. 316, Governor's Bill Jacket, unpaginated May 19, 1977
letter from DW Brown to HL Carey; L.1977, c. 316, Governor's Bill Jacket,
unpaginated Budget Report on Bills.  The Association of the Bar of the City
of New York, while noting the reform bill was "laudable and long overdue",
suggested that it should be rejected until Manhattan Sheriff's juries were
eliminated by statute.

Dennis Harlow


On 11/21/06, Travis, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> This was a "Sheriff's jury".
> The question is did anyone hear of a practice of making up and giving out
> souvenirs to jurors and/or others?
>
> John N. Travis
> Albany County Historian/
> Real Property Investigator
> 112 State St, Albany NY 12207
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State
> history. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jim Folts
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 3:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NYHIST-L] Astor/Chanler
>
>
> The best-known use of the "special jury" was by NY County District
> Attoney Thomas E. Dewey, in his campaign against organized crime in the
> late 1930s. The press called such juries "blue-ribbon" juries.
>
> Use of the so-called "special jury" was first authorized by NY Laws of
> 1896, Chap. 378. The 1896 statute provided for use of a "special jury"
> upon application by the district attorney OR the defendant in a criminal
> case OR either party in a civil case, "by reason of the importance or
> intricacy of the case . . . or [because] the subject matter of the
> indictment or the issue to be tried has been so widely commented upon
> that the court is satisfied that an ordinary jury cannot without delay
> and difficulty be obtained to try such issue" or for the "due, efficient
> and impartial administration of justice."  The statute required personal
> examination of each prospective special juror concerning his
> "qualification and fitness to serve as a special juror." The statute
> provided no definition of such qualifications, though a clue may be
> found in the statutory reference to "intricacy of the case"--implying
> that a complex case might require jurors with greater powers of analysis
> and/or greater subject expertise.
>
> The provisions of the 1896 statute were reenacted by Laws of 1902 Chap.
> 602, and Laws of 1938, Chap. 552 (= Judiciary Law sect. 18b). The
> statute was repealed by Laws of 1965, Chap. 778. The "special jury"
> provisions always applied only in counties of population of one million
> or more, which means the statute was applicable only in some of the
> boroughs of New York City, and in the late decades in some of the NYC
> suburban counties and in Erie County (Buffalo).
>
> Jim Folts
> Head, Reference Services
> New York State Archives
>
>
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 11/20/06 11:24 AM >>>
> TO WHOMEVER:
>
>        I am trying to assist someone who is researching the 1899 Lunacy
> Trial of John Armstrong Chanler.  They have uncovered an artifact from
> the trial - a "flask" inscribed "FIRST PANEL SHERIFFS JURY JANUARY 14,
> 1899" and bearing what appears to be the court's coat-of-arms..
>
>        Has anyone heard of such a thing?  Would the jurors be given
> them as souvenirs?
>
>
>        The story behind the trial is fascinating,  Chanler, an heir to
> the Astor fortune,  was found sane in some states and insane in others.
> There is a new book out on this -"ARCHIE AND AMELIA, LOVE AND MADNESS IN
> THE GILDED AGE."
>
> John N. Travis
> Albany County Historian/
>
> 112 State St, Albany NY 12207
>