rrufff, Of course you are wrong as always.
that's one opinion. Most US jurisprudence rejects it. Judges are trained in the law and the jury finds the facts.
The jury is the last best protection against tyrants.
America’s first Chief Justice, John Jay, had this to say when giving jury instructions on behalf of a unanimous United States Supreme Court:
"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision." — Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794)
Another example:
Alexander Hamilton, who authored much of The Federalist, stated from his argument in the libel case People against Croswell:
"The Chief Justice misdirected the jury, in saying they had no right to judge of the intent and of the law. In criminal cases, the defendant does not spread upon the record the merits of the defence, but consolidates the whole in the plea of not guilty. This plea embraces the whole matter of law and fact involved in the charge, and the jury have an undoubted right to give a general verdict, which decides both law and fact... All the cases agree that the jury have the power to decide the law as well as the fact; and if the law gives them the power, it gives them the right also. Power and right are convertible terms, when the law authorizes the doing of an act which shall be final, and for the doing of which the agent is not responsible...
"It is admitted to be the duty of the court to direct the jury as to the law, and it is advisable for the jury in most cases, to receive the law from the court; and in all cases, they ought to pay respectful attention to the opinion of the court. But, it is also their duty to exercise their judgments upon the law, as well as the fact; and if they have a clear conviction that the law is different from what is stated to be by the court, the jury are bound, in such cases, by the superior obligations of conscience, to follow their own convictions. It is essential to the security of personal rights and public liberty, that the jury should have and exercise the power to judge both of the law and of the criminal intent." — Alexander Hamilton, People against Croswell, 3 Johns. Cas. 336. (1804):, id at 345, 346)
And another ... "[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge... The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law." — U.S. v. Dougherty, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972, 473 F.2d at 1130 and 1132.
accountabilityutah.org
So while I've only got a couple of people's opinions supporting my position, they are from John Jay and Alexander Hamilton! What have you got?????
While you're at it, you should read up on the trial of William Penn. Makes for some interesting reading as to the extent that jurors are prepared to go to protect the innocent. tarlton.law.utexas.edu |
