The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1895-04-27
SATURDAY APRIL - 1895.
HOW FL JTRIES ARE JUDGES
or THE Ii ".
Communicated

Many persons are lmbned with the
idea that iuries in IA criminal case are
the judges of the law in the sense that
they have the absolute right to acqnit
IN any case in which they do not like
the la ", or think it inexpedient.
The notion prevails in some quarters
that to be judges of the law means tt
determine whether any given law is a
good II or a bad one, whether it is
expedient or inexpedient. whether it
ought o be enforced or allowed to fall
into "innocuous desuetude." through
the stubborn refusal of juiies to do
their sworn duty.
No doubt, general ignorance has
much TO answer for in accounting for
the prevalence of such crude ideas in
any community. The doctrine that
juries a do what they please when a
case is submitted to their considera-
ton, and disregard the law as charged
to them by the court. and the evidence
as presented to them by the witnesses.
is a doctrine not only radically erro-
neous, but baneful in its influence, for
it saps the very foundations of social
order. 1t substitutes the will of the
Jurors for the law, and renders the en-
forcement of the law dependent upon
their whims and prejudices. Its evil
dent and manifest tendency is to des-
troy all law and order. and, if carried
out to its logical conclusion, it would
subvert all government and bring on
anarchy.
That the notion we have indicated
is radically Wong has been repeated
~ decided by our Supreme Court, as
will be seen by the following citations.
In the case of the State VS.. johnson,
30 An. 906, the late Chief Justice Man
ming condemns this legal heresy in the
following most emphatic language:
at is not correct" lie says, ITO tell a
jury that they are the judges of the
law, without explaining the modified
sense in which alone, they are so. 1t
is not, and has never been, within the
province of jury to decide what the
law OF a case is. Except in periods
when revolutionary PASSIONS dominat-
Ell mems Judgments a jury has never
been supposed to have the legal right
to disregard the law as pronounced by
the court to them. 1t has become so
customary OF late years in this State
for juries to be told that they have
That power, without adding that the
exercise OF this physical power is of
Itself a moral wrong: and the practice
has become so general tor the counsel
OF an accused person to persuade the
jury that they have the right to usurp
the functions OF the judge in this par
t%icular. and that too, without res
tralnt Ivy the judge but often with his
acIuiescenee, that from much repeti-
ton it has come to be regarded as
sound law.
Il think it is time fortais ISupremel
Court to suppress this legal heresy,
and to bring back the lower court and
the profession to the true. aud o
generally accepted rule that the legal
duty of a jury IS to receive the law
from the judge and that a jury can
not lightly exercise the physical pow
er OF dlsregarding the instructions Of
the court upon the law any more than
they can rightly find Il verdict direct
ly opposed 20 the proof of the facts"
In State vs.. Ford, 81 An. t65. it was
held:
The jury must find the facts which
they believe to have been proven and
when they consider what, if any crime
results from the state of the facts.
they must apply the law as given them
by the Judge"
The language of our highest court
is still more emphatic. if possible in
condemning the proposition which we
have mentioned, in the case of the
State VS.. Matthews, 80 An. 796: |