At the conclusion of the trial the jury retired to deliberate its verdict. Upon the jury’s return, foreman Edward Bushnell reported to the court simply that the jury found that William Penn had spoken on the street, which was no violation of the law at all.Here is a contemporaneous account of the trial: http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/penntrial.htmlThe judge was outraged and overcome with anger. He commanded the jury to retire again and render the verdict of guilt. Nevertheless, the jury returned and again stated that the verdict was that Mr. Penn had simply spoken on a street and not violated any law. The indignant judge confined the jury “to the hole,” in Newgate Prison, and instructed the foreman Bushnell that the jury would remain in the hole without food or water until a proper verdict was rendered.
Three more times the jury went out and returned the same verdict. When the jurors persisted in refusing to go out any more, the judge fined each of them and ordered them imprisoned until the fines were paid.
... Such harsh treatment was not unprecedented. Juries in 1670 were very much under the thumb of the Crown: if a jury delivered a result that was unsatisfactory to the Crown, jurors were imprisoned and fined. ...
The William Penn trial helped establish the principle of jury independence, which remains vital to our democracy. A jury stands between the arbitrary power of the state and the rights and liberties of individuals.
[excerpted from http://www.shapirosher.com/news/TrialofWilliamPenn.htm]
A Juries discretion in chambers is unfettered. They must disobey or disregard, as a high civic duty, any overreaching judicial instruction, and such overreaching instruction is common in our day.
ONLY a Jury can determine not only the facts applied to the law, but whether the law, whether stated in code or established in habit as common law should apply in a given case.
A Jury should not accept any Judge's wording that states "if A then B MUST be found" such as in "If you find that the man held the victim with purpose you MUST find for GUILT on the count of unlawful restraint". It may take it as loose guidance, but a Jury is NOT bound such instruction.
Why do I say this? Based on the example of the citizen Jury in the Trial of William Penn.
Yes, there is the fact of jury nullification.
If you are on a jury, you can find a perp “not guilty,” even if they broke a “law,” if you believe that law violates common law and is illegitimate.
If you fellow FReeper, for instance, is charged with open carry in California -
and he is “guilty,” -
but you believe he actually does have the right to carry a loaded gun openly, and that the law is bogus -
you can acquit him.
All this talk about jury avoidance! Our juries should be filled with FReepers! Get out there!