JURY DUTY

The term 'Trial by Jury" strikes up preconceived notions in all of us, but how many of us in this nation
really know What it is? Our founding fathers considered it quite important, being mentioned in the
Declaration of Independence as one of the things the King was depriving the people of, and being one
of our constitutional guarantees. But has our guarantee been sidestepped? One can find plenty of
evidence to suggest that it has.

Our constitution guarantees our right to jury trial in a number of places, but does not define what a jury
is. The reason for this is everyone in 1776 knew what a jury at that that time was, and that is what the
constitution binds the government to grant us. So, in order to know what a jury is, we must go back
more than 200 years to find out what it was.

I am quoting from a little known book I came across called "An Essay on the Trial by Jury" by
Lysander Spooner, first published in Boston, 1852:

“The term jury is a technical one, derived from the common law; and when the American constitutions
provide for the trial by jury, they provide for the common law trial by jury; and not merely for any trial
by jury that the government itself may chance to invent, and call by that name. It is the thing and not
merely the name, that is guaranteed. Any legislation, therefore, that infringes any essential principal of
the common law in the selection of jurors is unconstitutional; and the juries selected in accordance with
such legislation are, of course, illegal, and their judgments void." Pg. 142 Pp3

We are guaranteed the same jury as existed then; which was the common law jury. "The government
has no power to change our jury, but change it it has.

The common law jury was the conscience of the people. The 12 jurors would hear the case, all of it,
until there was no more to be said, and then would follow their consciences as to whether not any
wrong had been done. They decided both whether the person did what he was accused of doing and
whether there should even be a law against doing what he did. They decided both the facts and the law
in every case. The Judge (when there was one) presided to keep order in the room and answer any
quest ions the jury might have (although the jury was not bound by his answers) .

In order for the jury system to be the “palladium of liberty" it is intended to be, it must be able to judge
the law the accused is charged under is just. If it is not, it is the duty of the jury to find the defendant
guiltless.

Lysnader Spooner: " The trial by jury then, is a 'trial by the country '-that is, by the people – as
distinguished from a trial by the government .

“The object of this trial 'by the country' or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is
to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is
indispensable that the people, or 'the country,' judge of and determine their own liberties against the
government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people.
How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the
government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?" Pg. 6 pp2 and 4.

“The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what are the liberties of the people,
must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people;
because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the
government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the
government sees ft to indulge them with. If on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people,
then the people have all liberties, (as against the government) except such as substantially the whole
people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as
substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise." Pg 10 pp4

This is the only way to keep our liberties, this is what our founding fathers established as our protection
against oppressive government. What does our government have to say about this? It does not want us
to have this liberty, although there is case law that supports it.

In 1794, in the very first jury trial before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Jay, with all associate
Justices concurring, charged the jury in part as follows:

"It is presumed that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the
courts are the best judges of law. But still, both objects are within your power of decision... You have a
right to take upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, (3 Dalls. 1)

Also, as recently as 1969, the Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland confirmed this act ion:

“If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or
passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." U.S. vs. Moylan,
417F2d 1002, 1006.

And in 1972 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia acknowledged that the jury has
“unreviewable and unreversible power to acquit in disregard of the instruct ions on the law
given by the trial judge.” U.S. vs.Dougherty, 473F 2d 1138, 1139.

Although our Justices may not want us to know it, our juries still have the power to veto laws. Anyone
who has served on a jury probably remembers the judge telling the jurors that they must judge
according to the law as he tells them to. this is totally wrong. The jurors can ignore him and inform the
other jurors when in deliberation.

We can see then, that the jury's power is absolute. It must be in order to preserve our rights. however,
we must inform those on jury duty what their job is, the judges often will not. Today's jury has been
tampered with, it's powers have been watered down. Over the years judges have stripped powers from
the jury and bestowed them on (who else?) themselves. 'They are in violation of their oath to uphold
the constitution if they withhold evidence from the jury, instruct them contrary to their rights, excuse
jurors because of their views, and many other things they do to diminish the powers of a jury. Judges
were never granted authority to change the jury; at least, the people never gave that authority.

Judges have changed the jury ever so slightly over the years, a process that has gone unnoticed by
most. Jurors still have the upper hand, though. If they go into the courtroom armed with the knowledge
of their duties and responsibilities, they can (indeed, must) overrule the judges and vote that their
consciences tells them, not the judge tells them.

If you are informed, if your neighbor is informed, if we can just educate ourselves in these matters, we
will restore our juries to their full powers. We need only one informed person on each jury to instruct
the other jurors, or to simply veto the other 11 votes (however, in many cases it has been tampered with
and now requires only 9 or 10 votes) and another's rights will have been protected. Each time we
protect another's rights, our own are strengthened.

Now that you know - volunteer for jury duty. You'll be glad you did.

Printed by
COMMON LAW CONCERN