Second.-That whether she had a lawful proper to vote or not, if she honestly believed that she had that right and voted in good faith in that perception, she was guilty of no crime. The District Attorney thereupon addressed the Court at length upon the authorized questions, and at the close of his argument the Court delivered an opinion adversarial to the positions of the defendant’s counsel upon both of the authorized questions introduced, holding that the defendant was not entitled to vote; and that if she voted in good faith in the idea in indisputable fact that she had a proper to vote, it will constitute no defense-the grounds of the decision on the final point being that she was certain to know that by legislation she was not a authorized voter, and that even if she voted in good faith in the contrary perception, it constituted no defense to the crime with which she was charged.
In fact by refusing to submit any query to the jury, the choose refuses to permit counsel to deal with the jury within the defendant’s behalf. If such course is allowable in this case, it have to be equally allowable in all criminal circumstances, whether or not the cost be for treason, homicide, or any minor grade of offense which might come beneath the jurisdiction of a United States Court; and as I understand it, if appropriate, substantially abolishes the proper of trial by jury. Youth violence rates within the United States have dropped to approximately 12% of peak rates in 1993 in line with official US government statistics, suggesting that almost all juvenile offending is non-violent. They both have lengthy, dark brown hair, darkish brown eyes, pointed chins and sculpted eyebrows. It was also shown on the part of the federal government, that on the examination of the defendant before the commissioner on whose warrant she was arrested, she acknowledged that she should have voted, if allowed to vote, without reference to the advice she had obtained from the attorney whose opinion she had requested; that she was not influenced to vote by that opinion; that she had earlier than determined to supply her vote, and had little question about her proper to vote.
That query of fact was, whether the defendant, on the time when she voted, knew that she had not a proper to vote. The Court then charged them that although Jones (the other defendant) had first commenced a battery on Shule, yet, if the jury believed the evidence, the defendant, Shule, was also responsible. The jury consulted collectively a couple of minutes within the courtroom room. When the counsel had proceeded to this point, the Court urged that the counsel had better talk about in the first place the questions of regulation; which the counsel proceeded to do, and having discussed the 2 authorized questions at length, asked leave then to say a couple of words to the jury on the query of fact. In regard to that, I insist that however clear and conclusive the proof of the information might appear to be, the response to the query, responsible or not responsible, should below the Constitution come from the jury and couldn’t be supplied by the judgment of the court docket, until, indeed, the jury ought to see fit to render a special verdict, which they always may, but can never be required to do.
That must be their spontaneous work. In accordance with these provisions, I insist that in every criminal case, the place the social gathering has pleaded not guilty, whether or not upon the trial the guilt of such occasion seems to the choose to be clear or not, the response to the question, responsible or not responsible, must come from the jury, should be their voluntary act, and can’t be imposed upon them by the Court. With what jealous care the correct of trial by jury in criminal cases has been guarded by every English-speaking people from the days of King John, indeed from the times of King Alfred, is known to each lawyer and to each clever layman, and it doesn’t seem to me that such a limitation of that proper as is presented by the proceedings in this case, might be reconciled both with constitutional provisions, with the observe of courts, with public sentiment on the topic, or with security in the administration of justice. The defendant’s counsel excepted to the choice of the Court upon the legal questions-to its refusal to submit the case to the jury; to its refusal to present the instructions asked; and to its route to the jury to find a verdict of guilty against the defendant-the counsel insisting that it was a course which no Court had a right to give in a criminal case.