It cannot due to this fact be denied that, in all criminal instances, the jury do just about possess the ability of deciding questions of law in addition to of fact. And this opinion holds that the defendant, in all criminal cases, is entitled to deal with the jury upon the questions of law as well as of fact concerned within the case. Again, the conclusions arrived at by the opinion admit the facility of the jury to determine questions of law; and that, in instances where the jury acquit the defendant, there isn’t a energy to reverse or even to assessment the finding of the jury. It wouldn’t appear to be germane to this query to inquire whether or not or not the petitioner had the authorized right to vote, because that was a question of law absolutely throughout the competency of the judge to resolve, and his choice did not essentially work a hardship to the defendant, even when mistaken in judgment. The trial by jury-the judgment of one’s friends-is the shield of actual innocence imperiled by authorized presumptions.
Nevertheless it could also be mentioned that the ruling of the court docket was appropriate in level of legislation, and, had the courtroom submitted the case to the jury, it would have been the responsibility of the jury to seek out the memorialist responsible; due to this fact she is just not aggrieved by the judgment which the court pronounced. The jury should do their duty and their whole responsibility. On the whole subject, the views of the courtroom could also be summarily expressed in the next propositions: That in all criminal circumstances it is competent for the jury, if they see match, to decide upon all questions of truth embraced in the problem, and to refer the legislation arising thereon to the courtroom within the type of a special verdict. It is the humane coverage of our regulation, that, earlier than any citizen shall endure punishment, he shall be condemned by the verdict of his peers, who could also be expected to guage as they would be judged. If a citizen have a cause involving the title to his farm, if it exceed two thousand dollars in worth, he could deliver his trigger to the Supreme Court; but when it includes his liberty or his life, he can not.
And, secondly, are the acts and order of the judge in accordance with the regulation of the land, and not in derogation of the correct of the citizen to trial by jury at frequent law as assured by the Constitution, as known and practiced within the courts of the United States? The memorialist had no jury-trial inside the meaning of the Constitution, and her conviction was subsequently erroneous. Assuming, due to this fact, that this software is correctly before us, we come to the second query of whether, by the proceedings in courtroom, the legal rights of the petitioner have been infringed, from which she has suffered. There actually might be no graver query affecting the rights of citizens than this. I concur with the vast majority of the Committee that Congress can not grant the exact relief prayed for in the memorial; however I deem it to be the duty of Congress to declare its disapproval of the doctrine asserted and the course pursued in the trial of Miss Anthony; and all of the extra for the reason that no judicial court docket has jurisdiction to evaluate the proceedings therein. Agendas of board and committee conferences have been posted in advance on the board’s Web site, and summaries ofdecisions have been posted afterward.
I concur with nearly all of the Committee that Congress can’t remit the judgment; that would be to exercise the pardoning energy. But it’s elective with the jury thus to return a special verdict or not, and it is inside their reliable province and energy to return a basic verdict if they see fit. Quite the opposite, the courtroom took the case from the jury altogether and directed their verdict; thus denying to the jury not solely the moral right, but even the power of rendering a verdict of not guilty; and refused the request of counsel to have the jury polled in regard to their verdict. But I only say that, when thus definitively adjudged, the choice have to be deemed conclusive and stand as a rule of legislation. Now, when a new statute is handed, and a question of law is raised by counsel, it should first come before the courtroom, charged by legislation with the conduct and superintendence of a jury trial; and, in any effectively-ordered system of jurisprudence, provision is made that it be re-examinable by the courtroom of last resort.