Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1853-11-11
.Juries,


The amendment Of the Constitution giving TO iuries
the right TO decide the law well as the fact, in
criminal cases, stands by itself, and may be adopted
or rejected, without affecting any other amendment.
Yet, we hope, this, too, will be sustained, by de.
cided vote.
There is much msapprehension on the subject
Adopt the amendment and it will still be the duty Of
the Judge to instruct the jury heretofore, respect
ing the law, and, in all ordinary cases. the jury will
receive the law from the Court, and be governed by
It's Interpretation. But, cases may arise where laws
at war with the reserved rights of the people, as
expressed in the Bill Of Rights, may be enacted and
Judge Curtis may attempt TO remove from the iu-
Tybox all jurors who will not pledge themselves TO
sustain IT. To prevent this. the proposed amend.
ment leaves TO the jury, their oahs, 10 protect
the citzenin the enjoyment Of his constitutional lib
eriy. In clear case Of violation Of the Bill of
Rights, the jury shall be at liberty TO acquit, when,
on their oaths, and aile instruction from the Court,
they are satisfied Of the uuconsitionality of law.
The safety of the peoples Liberties demands tina,
this right should exist.
The amendment does not introduce any change in
the law OF the Commonwealth, as it clearly stood.
until recently some doubts have been thrown upon
it. Chief Justice Parker. ia the trial of Theodore
Lyman for libel upon Daniel Webster, in 1926, in
his charge to the jury, says, that such always was
the la" in Massachusetts We give the language
Of the learned Judge, as follows:
Each case stands almost independently of eve
ry other, depending upon the facts or circumstan
ces which belong TO it, and hence the principle
now universally acknowledged in this country.
and in England, that the jury, who are selection
from the people, shall determine the whole case,
both as to law and fact. by general verdict of
guilty or not guilty, unless they choose TO refer
the matter of law to the court, IN The form of
special Uerdict
There have been great controversies upon this
subject, and the highest order Of talents exercised
upon II. Until quite a recent period in English
history, the Judges arrogated 10 themselves the
right 10 determine the criminalily of an alleged
libel, leaving to the jury the power only of find.
ing the fact of publishing, and the truth Of The
lnuendoes. But in The late reign of George iii.
by an act OF parliament, the whole power of de.
termnlng the facts and law, has been vested in
the jury
believe that was always The law with US;
1t certainly is now. II never could have been
otherwise in practice, whatever might be the the
ory--for the jury have always had the right to
return general verdict, which involves both law
ana iaci, and when there was an acquita, there
was no power in the Court TO suspend or defeat
tneIr verdict With this popular guard over the
rights OF the press, and the rights of the citizen
the system is safe from anything but occasional
errors which, though to be regretted, will scarce
~ be able to produce general mischief But the
jury have a right to the advice and opinion of the
Cour! upon all matters oflaw arising in The course
Oh the trial; and indeed It is the duty of The Court
10 give such advice and opinion, clearly and dis
tinctiY, ~ order that the Jury with whom is the
final responsibility, shall not excuse themselves
from an erroneous verdict, on the score OF igno-
rance
The decision Of this cause, then, gentlemen.
rests entirely with you, and you must act with
the intelligence and discretion which the occasion
demands.
In the subsequent important trail of Knapp, at
Salem, in 1880, for murder, the whole Supreme
Court confirmed the opinion which the Chief Jus
lice had pronounced on the former OCCASION Yet,
wh'le such was the law universally recognized in
ms State, Tor long period, no practical difficulty
arose. while most important safeguard Of popular
liberty was preserved. He who doubts the wisdom
OIL aho""g The jury, in criminal cases, the power Of
protecting The citizen against clearly unconstitutional
encroachmenls upon his liberties, does not prize at
its true value, the worth and excellence Of the ins
tuition Of trial by "lhe country"
Remember, that the july bound by their oa,bs
as much TO decide according 10 law as they are ac.
cordng TO the iacs, and that no jury,exceptln cases
which are clear to them Of violation of reserved
popular rights, can consistently with such oath, dis
regard the instruction Of the Court in matters Of
law and acquit the accused.