| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | The right to trial by jury is part of the American constitution, and is one of the legal defenses put in place to keep a tyrannical government from using a court of law as a means of enforcing a dictatorship. In some countries with totalitarian governments, "show trials" have been used with no jury to put a false appearance of post-facto legitimacy to dictatorial oppression; the rights to trial by jury and the right of a defendant to hear the charges against them and challenge the evidence serves as a check against totalitarian power. | | The right to trial by jury is part of the American constitution, and is one of the legal defenses put in place to keep a tyrannical government from using a court of law as a means of enforcing a dictatorship. In some countries with totalitarian governments, "show trials" have been used with no jury to put a false appearance of post-facto legitimacy to dictatorial oppression; the rights to trial by jury and the right of a defendant to hear the charges against them and challenge the evidence serves as a check against totalitarian power. |
| | | | |
| − | Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams felt strongly that jury trials were the best defense against government. Thomas Jefferson considered "trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." John Adams said it was a jury's "duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." In recent times, the right to trial by jury has been under attack in America, most notably in the [[Patriot act]] and the "war on terror", where the executive branch has argued that persons accused of terrorism are not guaranteed the right to a trial by jury. | + | Both [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[John Adams]] felt strongly that jury trials were the best defense against government. Thomas Jefferson considered "trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." John Adams said it was a jury's "duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." In recent times, the right to trial by jury has been under attack in America, most notably in the [[Patriot act]] and the "war on terror", where the executive branch has argued that persons accused of terrorism are not guaranteed the right to a trial by jury. |
| | | | |
| | Here is a list of influential jury trials affecting American history: | | Here is a list of influential jury trials affecting American history: |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | # [[John Peter Zenger]] (1735) | | # [[John Peter Zenger]] (1735) |
| | # [[William Marcy Tweed|Boss Tweed]] (1873) | | # [[William Marcy Tweed|Boss Tweed]] (1873) |
| | + | # [[Leo Frank]] (1913) |
| | # [[Sacco and Vanzetti Trial|Sacco & Vanzetti]] (1921) | | # [[Sacco and Vanzetti Trial|Sacco & Vanzetti]] (1921) |
| | # [[John Scopes]] (1925) | | # [[John Scopes]] (1925) |
| | # Colonel [[Billy Mitchell]] (1925) | | # Colonel [[Billy Mitchell]] (1925) |
| | # [[Alger Hiss]] (1949) | | # [[Alger Hiss]] (1949) |
| | + | # [[Julius Rosenberg | Julius & Ethel Rosenberg]] (1951) |
| | # [[O. J. Simpson]] (two trials) (1995, 1997) | | # [[O. J. Simpson]] (two trials) (1995, 1997) |
| | # [[Duke Lacrosse Hoax]] (2006) | | # [[Duke Lacrosse Hoax]] (2006) |
| | # [[George Zimmerman]] (2013) | | # [[George Zimmerman]] (2013) |
| | # [[Kyle Rittenhouse]] (2020) | | # [[Kyle Rittenhouse]] (2020) |
| | + | # Daniel Penny (2024)<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/daniel-penny-verdict-nyc-subway-chokehold-jordan-neely/</ref> |
| | | | |
| | Roughly half of these important trials resulted in convictions; the other half resulted in acquittals. (A related topic is ''impeachment'', where the "jury" comprises the United States Senate, rather than a selection of randomly chosen citizens. A summary of important impeachment trials can be found in the article on [[impeachment]].) Here is a summary of the cases and their influence: | | Roughly half of these important trials resulted in convictions; the other half resulted in acquittals. (A related topic is ''impeachment'', where the "jury" comprises the United States Senate, rather than a selection of randomly chosen citizens. A summary of important impeachment trials can be found in the article on [[impeachment]].) Here is a summary of the cases and their influence: |
| | | | |
| − | 1. William Penn joined the [[Quakers]] in [[London]], a religion disliked by the King. In 1670, Penn held a worship service and was arrested allegedly for disturbing the King's peace At trial, the jurors heard testimony and the judge, as is still the custom, delivered jury instructions prior to its deliberations. The jury instructions included an order to find the Penn guilty. | + | 1. [[William Penn]] joined the [[Quakers]] in [[London]], a religion disliked by the King. In 1670, Penn held a worship service and was arrested allegedly for disturbing the King's peace At trial, the jurors heard testimony and the judge, as is still the custom, delivered jury instructions prior to its deliberations. The jury instructions included an order to find the Penn guilty. |
| | | | |
| | But the jury refused to find Penn guilty. The judge angrily sent them back to continue deliberations. The jury returned again with its same verdict. The judge demanded "a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco .... We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it." The jury went out three more times, and returned with the same verdict each time. Then it refused to deliberate any more and the judge fined and imprisoned them. Penn was also fined and imprisoned on a scurrilous new charge invented at trial (for donning a hat in the courtroom). | | But the jury refused to find Penn guilty. The judge angrily sent them back to continue deliberations. The jury returned again with its same verdict. The judge demanded "a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco .... We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it." The jury went out three more times, and returned with the same verdict each time. Then it refused to deliberate any more and the judge fined and imprisoned them. Penn was also fined and imprisoned on a scurrilous new charge invented at trial (for donning a hat in the courtroom). |