Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-12-07
IURTEs n CBIHu A CASES
m-nGEs az THE LAW


We al know that 3 jury in : criminal
case hss the poorer 70 decide the law.
ard may do so in direct defiance Of the
Instructions or opinions Of the Judge
because they cannot be compelled tc
any other than 8 general verdict Of
guilty or not guilty.
The question is, whether they hsve the
right, IS well As the power. Can they, If
they are satisfied that the opinions OF the
Judge are erroneous, decide the contrary
Of his opinion 10 be law, and sequit the
prisoner whom they must necessarily
convict If the charge Of the Court is cor
rect2
We answer yes, to this question. In
our opinion, firmly entertained for
twenty-five year,, they have the right;
aud moreover it is their tounden and
sworn duty, to disregard the opinion OF
the Court, II they are satisfied that It
states the Law incorrectly.
OF course they should be satisfied of
that. They must, Of course, give due
weight to the opinions expressed by the
Court, and receive it with respect and
consideration bat it is no more author
ilative as law to govern their finding,
than are the passages read in their hear
ing from the Law books. II not demon
strated TO them By these books or by az
gument TO be incorrect, they would act
very vrongfuIIy if they d~isregarded the
~suthority Of the Court and from mere
whim or feeling decided that the law
was not as stated by the Court. The
presumption is that the Court knows
what the Law Is, and that it decides it
correctly; but If a jury is satisfied 10 the
contrary, it must act on its own judg-
ment; for the law Of the land puts upon
them the responsibility, and they cannot
escape from IT,
Judge FISHER before whom JOHN II.
SURRATT was tried, charged the jury,
that a conspiracy to kill the President in
4ime Of war is treason, aud that 3 con-
spirator who was absent at the time Of
killing is equally guilty Of treason with
those who we're present, and, il guilty OF
the greater crime, then guilty Of the
lesser, which the greater includes. If
this were the law, the jury had no alter
native TO finding 8 verdict Of guilty.
The common sense OF the Jurymen, it
appears, would not permit them TO se-
cegt il a. the law, notwithstanding that
it was uttered by the mouth Of Judge
FISHER. and Notwithstanding that he
emphstically charged them, THAI they
were bound to receive the Law frsm his
lips, and had no right to decide it to be
otherwise.
The charge was an outrage upon the
law and the jury deserve an immortal
honour as the jurors in the English
Courts have often done, for disrsgarding
the mandate Of the Court, and interpos-
ing between 8 Government esger to con
vict, and the life Of a prisoner entrusted
TO their safeguard.
It is quite true that more than one
court, tsnd among these the Supreme
Court OF Massachusetts, have Of late
years held, as Judge Fisher did, that
the Jury cannot find the law contrary TO
the direction Of the Court. The same
Courts might have formed presidents
upon which to ine and imprison jurors
in capital cases, for finding contrary to
the evidence. That was done IL the time
Of ELIZABETH, in Watts Is. Braiae, On
an appeal Of murder, 3 Eyiz. T79,
and in the time Of CHARLES II. in
Lesck'8 Gaze, T. Rqy7n. IS, and the King
IS. WGgstg5e and others, 1t. is.
Sir JOHN KEELING, Chief Justice Of
the Kings Bench ia the time Of CHARLES
II, gives US the following account Of one
Of his decisions : 4" Memorandum, 81
Lent Circuit at Winchester, IS Car. 2.
One HENRV HOOD was indicted for the
murder o. JOHN NEWER, and upon the
evidence il appeared that be killed him
without any ~prsvocston, and thereupon
] directed the jury that It was murder ;
for the law IN that case Intended malice ;
and told them they were judges Of the
matter OF fact, viz: Whether NEWER
died by the hand Of HOOD; but whstber
Il was murder OF ~mADsisughter, that was
matter in law, ia which they were to
observe the direction Of the Court. But
notwithstanding they would aud it only
-manslaughter; whereUpon / took tue
verdict, and fined the jury, Of which
JOHN GoLDwIER was the foreman, ST.
spjece, and committed them to Gaol till
they found sureties TO appear at the next
Assizes. and in the meantime 70 be Of
the good behaviour"
Apdi in BUSHELS case, VAUGHN Isl,
"a Juror kept his fellows 8 day and 3
night, without any rssson or asserting,
and therefore sent 70 the feet" Bot
that was the last case In England, in
which it was attempted to punish persons
for fading according 70 their eos
sciences. BUsHELL was discharged,
as Illegally Imprisoned and it Wa de-
cided that q jury was not hneabls for
finding contrary to the evidence, nor
was ever punished, upon our informa-
ton, either ia law or the Star-Chsmber,
for finding an untrue verdict, unless IN
bracery, subornatioa or the like, were
Joined.
Chancellor KENT, Of New York, one
Of the purest IS well as ablest judges that
ever adorned the bench, thus states the
Law as to the right and PrerogRtivs Of
juries:
ain every criminal ease, uPeR He
plea Of not guilty, the jury may, and "a.
deed they must, unless they CHOOSE 70
gnd ssPecisl verdict, take upon them