The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1878-05-15
mo. 49,.
Jurors Are Not the Judges of the
Law.

t5ii3
The Supreme Court has recently
rendered an interesting decision, in
The case Of the State vs.. Joseph NJ
johnson, the decision being read by
Justice !, De. Blame Blame, Chief J! Justice
Manning, in c ono I'll said: at,
ut is : not correct s t. tel ;e jury
that ll'f they are the BE Judges Of The law,
without i'll explaining : the nodded
sense e in Viii which g.. alone they IRE. SO.
Il is not, and never !! has been t within
the province 'i e,e, Of jury 70 decide what
the law Of a case IS. Except ii pc.
Il RODS IS when revolutionary passions
, dominated e ma mems Judgment, a jury
has a never been supposed 70 hare. the
legal right ! to 'j disregard TIE law as
pronounced 'oD'u n'' 81 BY the eourt to Them.
Tn y mas become 5 81 custom III mary of late
years in this IS State Sat for jqriea to be
told that they have that power. With
out adding that the exercise Of his
power Is SCI! of If Itself IT, moral
wrong; and the practice has become
SO general for the counsel Of an ac-
cusediperson to persuade 9tBs fury
that they have The Hight tS .hsnrp
the functions Of the judge in lhis
particular aud that atbo,a not Ndnly
without restraint 81 The aasa but
often with his s.scqaiesceqee that
from much repetition it has almost
conc to be regarded as sound law.
Think it is time for tliisscourt to
suppress this legal heresy,, aiitp to
bring back the lower courts and the
profession to the true and nov pene-
rally accepted rule that the legal tlu-
ty of a Jury is to receive Gle law
from the Judge, and that a jury Can.
not rightly exercise the physical
power of disregarding the instruc.
tiens of the court upon the law any
more than they can rightly find a
verdict directly opposed to the
proof of the facts. g o. 552' stl.gi1f
J The jury cannot determine the
law, or decide what isstl,e slaw, or
Judge Of the law in any case except
only in SO far as the question Of law
is component part, as it always is,
ola general verdict. For example
the question Of guilt ID a criminal
prosecution is compounded Of two
Ingredients |. Did the accused COM
nit the act, and that is d matter Of
fact. 2. Is the oct thus done d Grim
NAL offense, and that is. d q matter of
law. When tie jury return d gene
raj verdict they have necessarily il,sss ,sily
passed upon the question Of Jaw as
veil as upon the DIGESTION Of TACT.
But that is not what juries under
stand ajudge to mean, when hei6glls
hem they are judges Of the law as
veil as Of facts; nj, is that What ju.
les understand, 9 judge to mean
when he tells them they have the
power to decide the law III d 6iten
;ase, and therefore, to tell them that,
md nothing else, 9nisleads them.
''My opinion, said Mr. Justice.Sto-
y, is that the jury, are no. more
Judges of the Law sin5 al capital or
,ther criminal case, upon Tie plea Of
'ot guilty, then they ale in every
;ivil case, tried, upon the general
ssue.9 In each, their verdict, when
general, is necessarily compounded
,fslaw and fact, and includes, both.
IN each they must necessarily, de-
,ermine the law as we'll las tue fact.
In each they have the. physical power
20 disregard the law as laid down; to
hem by the courts; but | deny, that
n any case; civil OF criminal, they
lave the moral right, to. decide the
aw according to their own notions
,r pleasure" Battiste's case. Q
SUNNI, 243.
So also Chief Justice Shaw eft
9 the duty Of the jury to receive the
aw frow the court, and to conform
heir Judgment. and decision to such
Instructions, as far as they under.
stand them, in applying; the law to
he facts to be found BY them; and
t is not within the Legitimate. PROV
nee Of the jury to revise, reconsider
n decide contrary to such opinion or
direction of the court in matter of
aw. TO this duty jarors are bound
~ strong social and moral obliga-
ion, enforced by the sanction of'an
,ath, to the same extent oands III the
'ame manner as they Are c6nseieu-
iously bound to decide allduestions
II fact according to the aeviaetce."
Commonwealth vs. P rtor, rs Metc.,
,63. aeaa5'aa ARID
My firm conviction, said Mr.. JUS
ice Curtis, is that under the eonsti-
;ution OF the United States, jaries in
criminal cases have not the rigbt to.
decide any question of law, and. that
i they renaera general verdict, their
1uty and their oath require them TO
apply to the facts, as they may find