The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1895-03-06
AS TO JURORS POW Err.
The Twelve Good Lien AMI True are
Not Judges Of the Law as Well as
the Facts in Criminal Cases
De ,isioa Ea-ed on
Pennsylvania Case.

I Gently decided the question, "Arc Juri,
judges Of The law a. well ~ facts N
criminal eases ~
II was decided in the negative with
two dissenting opinions. Justice Gray
and Shiras were the dissenters.
This matter has been a mOoted ques-
tion for many years. In some states the
courts Of last resort have not yet settled
il, bat in the larger number Of states
the courts have already taken she same
view Of the law . the supreme court Of
the United States has just laid down.
In Pennsylvania the rule was settled
very clearly in 1891, in the case Of the
commonwealth against 3lcManus. Here
/ it iscEIphatically decided that the juries
Were not and never have been judges Of
the law.
Chief Justice Paxson i'm this case
wrote the opinion of the court and said
in regard to the point that the iuries are
judges of the law a. well u the facts
"The learned Judge Of the court below
answered This point by saying the Jury
had been sworn % try tine clls. on the |
law and tie evidence; that the state
ment Of the law by the court was the I
best evidence of the law within the
jury'~ reach, and that therefore in view
of that evidence and viewing il a. evil |
dcnce only, the jury was to bc guided
ly what the court had said with refer
ence 20 the law. This was an accurate I
and carefully considered answer to the |
point. II left the jury 10 decide the 4
case upon the law and the evidclce-not /
upon the law a. distinct frou tie evil /
deHca and they were instructed IL to !
what was the best evidence OF the law.
Thai j.. To soy iu the languagc OF the /
constitution, they were Co determine the |
law and the facts a. in other eases, uu- |
Gerthc advice and direction Of the court; |
they were To- look 10 the court FOR the /
best evidence Of the law, just IL they |
look 20 the witness for the best evil /
deace Of the facts. Thus Interpreted |
and Jhus administered, this seeming par
adox IN our criminal law becomes intel !
E-i5lr. y Judge who iEstrUcts jury in
criminal ease that they may disregard
tnc law as laid down by the court errs
a widely rs the Judge who gives them
50 binding instruction upon the law. Ii
is thc duty of the jury TO take the best
evidence Of the law Is Il i To take the
be-, evidence of the facts. When they I
refuse 20 docithcr they disregard this
duty and their oatEs."
Justice Mitchell fled an opinion in
the sane ease in which he says II con-
eur la affirming this Judgment and in =
the reasons given, but upon one point / +
would 20 further and put an end, once
fer al, to doctrine that regard - un-
sound from every point of view histori-
cti logical or technical"
Justice Mitchell then makes Il comprc-
hcnsiye review of the famous c;,-es Of
years ago, in England AMI in this coun-
try, where the question was raised and
history Of IL discussion in the first
constitutional convention OF Penu-yl- |
vauia.
The Justice said Of what had hereto
fore been the leading c.t-e in the state
"Much misunderstanding has been
caused in this state by the ease Of EaEe |
against the commonwealth. In that /
ease the point was pat % the court be
low that the jury axe the judges of the |
law and the facts, and all this court de |
cidcd was that the point should have |
been affirmed. The language OF Chief /
Justice SharSwOod was, however, less
guarded than usual with that eminent |
iur.,t ard following tine c;lze ofthc state |
agsin-; Cortyan .NcsmontI, ne dismiss
e the perfectly clear and substantial
dispute between power and right with
a brcvity ;hat j. hardly consistent with
the weight of the subject. The iistiuc-
ton between power and right, he SAYS,
whatever may be it, value in ethics, IN
law IS very sAadowy and unsubstantial.
he who has the legal power 20 DO
anything has the legal right. No court
should give binding instruction TO
jury which they are PowerIess to en-
force by granting a new trial lift should
be di-rpgartied." 1t J. somewhat re-
m1rkablc that the chief justice should
assume, a. il 80 commonly done by
counsel, tina; the jury will construe the
law more favorably To the prisoner
than the court would. IL Is onlya con
~truc,ion, too favorable to the prisoner,
th.t the court is Powerle>s to remedy
l by new trial, and that hack of power
ari---. not bcyaUSe TIE jury legal pow
I cr j. the same - legal right, but be
Z clI-,. for reasons OF general public poll
[ ~ one verdict of acguiial j. a final and
| irrcveTsihlc termination of the case.
! Ii legal power means legal right, then
a jury has a right to acluit any prisoner
without regard to either law orevidence
for their power To Ito - ) beyond qucs-
ton, aul they cannot be held 20 ac-
c1untability, they follow the maxim OF
| lynch law, that the murdered man
deserved to die anyhow, and therefore
his murderer should not be punished
even though he no longer seeks refuge
behind the thin veil OF transitory in
sanity that began when the shot was
fired and ended when il had killed its
man. Whether the distinction between
power and right he shadowy and
uusu5,tantial in practice or not it i
clear and vital and | rcpudiate such
confusion Of logical a well ~ moral
ideas. \ jury may disregard the evil
dence, but no judge ever said il had the
right 70 do 80, and if the disregard i
Of the weight OF evidence favuable to
the prisoner, the court sets aside the
verdict without hesitation, and even
this court, though it does not pass upon
the weight of evidence, does examine
its suiiiciency, and may on that ground
reverse without vcnire."
Justice Mitchell concludes his opin-
ion as already said, there Is not
single respectable English authority for
the doctrine in question and against the
solid phalanx Of the best American
judicial and professional opinion. l
have. not been able to find single well