“A Delusion, a Mockery, and a Snare”: Array Challenges and Jury Selection in England and Ireland, 1800-1850
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the historiography of the criminal trial, the law regarding array challenges has received little attention. A challenge to the array involved a party objecting to the composition of the panel of potential jurors from which the trial jury would be selected. Array challenges often arose when the defendant believed that the sheriff, or other official with responsibility to select the jury, had packed the jury pool with individuals who would find the accused guilty. This article first briefly outlines jury selection procedures in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in England and Ireland, then explores the use of challenges to the array, and the reasons why this safeguard was, or was not, employed successfully. In a series of cases the judiciary ensured that the array challenge was a weak instrument for preventing packed juries. The high rates of acquittals in Irish criminal trials led officials to pack juries, especially in high profile, politically-charged cases. Defendants resisted by launching array challenges, particularly in Ireland where Roman Catholic defendants faced jury panels assembled predominantly of Protestants. For its part, the judiciary was concerned that allowing defendants to employ array challenges would stall proceedings. In addition to this efficiency concern, judges applied a remarkably inflexible approach to the law when asked to apply challenging rules to situations in which jury selection irregularities were not caused by the sheriff, but by other officials given responsibilities in the jury selection process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".