The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-11-10

4
tree nations mutt pay for their li5esiy in moe
fuotantial matters that thefe inro8ds upon
rms tlcred bu!warf OF the nation are funda.
mentally oppoite 10 the fpiit of our conttitu.
,Ion aud that, though begun in TRIES the
precedent may gradually increa;c ant fprcad,
! to the n:te' dtnir Of iariea ;n qnehions of the
| GIoie moulertois concern.''
The concuton from thrle prineio,se is, that
The right ofjury trial il eiit initial to the liberties
ot this country; and that it is engraf!cd on our
contribution: thai this rsh; extends 20 both
the law and the fsd, and that whatever en-
| cro7ch'nents are to be sppreheDdrd on ,hi'
great privilege, are principally % he expected
from the jddges themfe.sss, not by ''opsn at
tackS' bn, Ivy - iecrst Vaccinations aud "new
ard arbitrary methods oe trial"
IL flows from thrfe de.luc,ions, that the irry
! have right 70 bear all tre evidence produced
ny the proiecDtion or the pri!oHer, ..a; touch.
es the lhuc which they are iworn ta tryi that
| theY atone are 10 Judge OF i,s 1veir6. thyy a.
zone are "a apply the iszp they alan; % deter
n'nc how lar the evidence iu;,pcris the in.Gt-
ment they alone ore o decide on the propYic.
! y o. rtadetine general or tpecial vridct.
! h's IS 10 far from beirg a 50 new OF a: bitra-
i'y EoetriHc, thatit IS exprefsy fvpported by
thf h'Shr:t pFecedents ia E0glaad. .ud by the
nett authority in ihs country. What f.ys the
enlightened Edmund Psrd:r:9u, who ws9 for
! years the preh6snt OF the Cour, Ct :p-
peais % Virginia, and certainly no. inferior To-
ithc Chiet Jafs,ce os the United States. either
.. IN legal requirement. or love of Liberty? "lfI
I'S CORE aaTit frnrcrsr evidence, ~ except.
} on my be taken &c ther oaHon ~, if the
:quejii"I derenc upon the sy.ig5i Of ie.2ia:ery,
;'ne jury, ana not tie court are e,.ciqfz..,r and
tWncon;ror'ahiy the judge" Wali,ngtou's
+! yep: = 90. And what FAY. Mr.. W;ckham
+. h'nie'' IN the cafe or Keel and Roberts q,5 Hcr-
! nsr', ?. sos. Do' rely principally upon
: 'hi3-tnat the court exceeded the due exerciie
; oi tteit powers, when they undertook 40 dc.
see upon the 7.tiy1't Of the teitimony given TO
/ Jury. 1t was Certainly their duty to Zee
thar the evidence was proper. But in rlimat-
ing rs weight, the jury werc excuG.eiy the
!JuiEes." Ga this cccaIion, the court mot ex-
o!'cit'y de'i ,rcS, that '' the DiRr;t, Court NOT
ctrtain'y did wrong in directing the u,y, that
re eT'!7sn1s z9as s'T-icn. IL H7iqt7 f5e iGle''
3im''dr Geci;os hy the court of a0reals are IRE.
iquert auc pointed. And !. f,nuId r. recolIett.
ied TOO, iIai ''eis we're prnEounccd in civil CAT.
es Only, ami c"tttqucn;ly aic m;ch ncre obi.
iGatorY ~ criminal pro-cutions.--it recns, that
:C : were n"t PreF2red to encroach upon the
lfAncsTy 81 jury ,tal by giving tELir fanClion to
"ne@ ana arbitrary doctrines"
End are The jury entitled to hear I'll the ,eRi.
nony that is produced /! Certainly not. Even
] thrie dcc'kopa recognize a GifiaSlon between
i proper and improper t-aimony. II is ;hr right CT
,the court - exclude al! teeta.orIy that is either
i"ptcpsr ~ ;t!et or mplcte!y irrelevant 10 The
iraie al 'hue. court ihonl1 not permit the e
! whence - ? NS'- to be produced sga;nf white
man; tsc'vt- this is 2cciss Of evidence, which
&c " f'Tori improper, being expressly prohibited
~ Inc virginia law from going 20 a Jury. TIur
fhc",d court !et in any tefirnony, that's not
! directly or Indirectly re,evaB: that Isl which
I does nor touch the iliue. All evidence is
ic'e"2'.t, which G5e-,ouch that iars. lrlhat IL.
'ne IA inpP2isd 20 hang upon variety OF pon,c,
'tili the evidence offered is not to be i,lu- out
otcat'c L toIch,s one ront Gully and not tie
| ~hols. Y it touches any cne, it touches the r
tuc itie!f and ihc evidence is therefore re.syao;
) 23d sdnAI'!e. Within iheGe .nis, il is the
! privilege sni duty OF the Jury 10 receive all toe
! e"o-Gcs, that 10 iu0uiittet. 10 them W the
f'noner or ne Froiecuton. J hey slo1e are to
| determine acw many points are touched by ;he
evidence, as we.i as how many poiuts are sgrn.
tia! to this iiue. no court caa wrei: this Ell,
dence ifoai them, without dired violation of
their rights
| What ,hen is to become Of the Judge Is
he 10 &c reduced TO an humble cyphsr? Horae
! l'ooHe has Certainly dssr5aea him zoo low,
when he DECLARED 20 Gor Kenyon. that Il was
the duty OF his Iaidfnip and the ,rier Of the
coprt TO keep order" Itis he jn;y cfths crj-
erto exclude al dforderiy ptorls; but Judge
mas one privilege irore; lie may exclude ali d.
C'ui ~ t"dt 49, irregular aud irrelevant W:tne-
fcs.
! judge tao, is enttled 10 initruG the nrv
or tic ilw cf the cafe; ard If they find aya;n9
ire evidence or the law, to ict aide their vel
dict and to grant new trial. But the Jury are
aho entitled 10 receive all the relevant teGimo
. ny thar IS produced, and TO find their verd,S
sven in the very teeth of bis bogouy,'., inRru.t
ons
Let Tvs apply thefe principles 70 TIE caf. oil
Aaron Burr. The Chief Jufice decided, ths.
Prrtcnce was hid in the irdisment and
: that unleis it could be proved, The indictment
| could noi be supported but that the prcCscu.
ton tad confeHsd tbat they had no evidence To
prove tic prefcnce on BIcnuerhaGett': ilapd
and therefore all irrther evidence G,ould t,.y.
Guided. Ia this compatible with the PRINCIPLES
We have effablifhed We explicitly arf,cer.
that II IS not. WHAT'S this doctrine hus 70 nv
that after trial ha: begun and the inry are
I i"orG, the judge may at any time and on snr
point which be may deem elTential 20 the In
tittmcnt, but which he is told there is n,, svi.
deoce to eitahhih, qualh the indictment, and
nut out ~ further evidence, in defiance Of the
rights of the Jury?
Ireaion is crime tina. conffs Of many
Tnk' a "EFgH plan, n1ilif4tr 1g;1,}ioyc
and ~ iome cafes, Preysacr. The chef TuNIce
has decided that miffary aT,mbi,ge !. 2. NJ.
ceo'rY as prejr7ee to fupport IN Indictment,
tina; !ays the levyiug Of war at certain Dis.-
SuCFOie then IL fhouid c. nf Cnf j., - - I,,.,r-