Posted on 10/27/2021 10:34:59 AM PDT by WMarshal
The Constitution
The Founders view of the jury as being of paramount importance in defending liberty is easily seen when examining the words of the Constitution. There are only 14 words describing freedom of speech and of the press in the Constitution. But there are 186 words describing trial by jury in the Constitution. It is guaranteed in the main body in Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 3, and in two amendments, the Sixth and the Seventh. No other right is mentioned so frequently, three times, or has as many words devoted to it. It is plain that the Founders viewed the jury trial right as the most important right since it gave birth to, and defended, all other rights. It should also be noted that trial by jury and jury nullification were common law rights at the time of the drafting of the Constitution and so are also included as rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment.
For anyone to assert after Zenger, the Navigation Act cases, the Declaration of Independence, and the great volume of language about the jury in the Constitution that the Founders would intend the jury to be a mere factfinder that must blindly follow the law as dictated by a judge is to fly directly in the face of logic and history. It is also to fly directly against the explicit words of the Founders about the jury's role.
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution."
Thomas Jefferson, drafter of the Declaration of Independence and Third President, in a letter to Thomas Paine, 1789, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 15, p. 269, Princeton University Press, 1958
"It is not only his right [the juror's], but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience even though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
John Adams, first proponent of the Declaration of
Independence and Second President, 1771
2 Life And Works of John Adams 253-255 (C.F. Adams ed. 1856)
"You [the jurors] have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, charging the jury in Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dallas 1, 4 (U.S. 1794)
"That in criminal cases, the law and fact being always blended, the jury, for reasons of a political and peculiar nature, for the security of life and liberty, is intrusted with the power of deciding both law and fact."
Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury People v. Croswell, 3 Johns Cas. 361, 362 (1804) as reprinted in Sparf and Hansen v. United States,
156 U.S. at 147-148, dissenting opinion, (1895)
Arguing Nullification to the Jury
In the Zenger case, defense attorney Andrew Hamilton argued to the jury in contradiction of the judge that truth is or should be a defense to a charge of seditious libel, that the jury has the power and right to judge the law, that the jury should take as the strongest evidence for Zenger the fact that Zenger's proposed evidence of truth had been suppressed by the judge, and that Bushell's Case established the right of the jury to vote its conscience.
"The right of the Jury, to find such a verdict as they in their conscience do think is agreeable to their evidence, is supported by the authority of Bushell's case."
defense attorney Andrew Hamilton, arguing to the jury
thanks! Good to know.
There is nothing that I find objectionable about that. I like it.
I don’t like jury selection. We put 12 in a jury for diversity. I don’t want a citizen tossed because of their education, occupation, age or ethnic background.
The judge should ask, are you related to the parties involved? No? Get in the box.
This approach has a bonus. You get a summons, you’re almost certain to serve. You’re not wasting a day waiting for the interview. AND you’re getting a summons much less frequently.
Did not know of Justice Goodloe, but am on a first name basis with former WASC Justice Richard Sanders who would agree with everything the former Chief Justice Goodloe wrote.
No, you would not like it in many cases.
Judges can also attempt to set aside jury verdicts in civil cases to protect a government from decisions a jury makes against the government.
Why would you do that? You should be a willing jury member to prevent a possible injustice.
1Un-elected or rigged election
2Elected, maybe in red states
3Totally unaccountable to the citizenry
Isn’t Facebook one of the branches?
We could add FB to my list
I don’t like jury selection either. But it is a fact of our legal system.
Because I like my work, and most jury duty is excruciatingly boring?
I was picked for jury duty once, when I asked about this ... I was dismissed and sent home.
So your work is more important than possibly helping an injustice.
I suspect you would have a different attitude if you were wrongfully charged with a crime.
I would have lied and gotten on the jury.
If a judge lies about required to follow the law as he gives it, lying to get on the jury presents no moral delimma.
If I get asked about jury nullification I will respond with “Is that when they delouse the jury?” That should make me look stupid enough to get a jury duty.
Yes, and they often do just that.
I got called once and they’re questioning potential jurors and I’m sitting out in the seats reading a book. Questions are like “Do you know the prosecutor?” “Can you hit the pot if you pee standing up?” “How many fingers am I holding up?”, but somehow the bailiff was convinced if I didn’t pay attention to the 34th irritation, er, iteration of the questions, I wouldn’t be quick to answer when it was my turn. [eyeroll]
Every time I read or partake in a discussion around juries and their responsibilities, powers, and processes I immediately am reminded of Charles Laughton in “This Land is Mine” speaking to the Jury at the end of the movie and letting them know he understands what they have to do to allow the French to retain some semblance of their civil rights.
Great movie
Are you sure about this?
What about a judge who sets aside the jury verdict and makes a bench ruling for a new trial?
-PJ
The Sussman verdict was a clear and overt act of nullification, based entirely on partisanship, witha total disregard for the facts and evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.