Changes

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:

# [[John Peter Zenger]] (1735)

# [[John Peter Zenger]] (1735)

# [[William Marcy Tweed|Boss Tweed]] (1873)

# [[William Marcy Tweed|Boss Tweed]] (1873)

# [[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)

# O. J. Simpson (two trials)

# [[Julius Rosenberg | Julius & Ethel Rosenberg]] (1951)

# [[O. J. Simpson]] (two trials) (1995, 1997)

# [[Duke Lacrosse Hoax]] (2006)

# [[George Zimmerman]] (2013)

# [[George Zimmerman]] (2013)

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).

Hiss maintained his innocence until he died, despite the eventual release of secret Soviet files apparently identifying him as a spy. Perhaps Hiss felt he could not go back on his prior statements, or perhaps he remained true to communism in protecting the movement. The case helped define American politics for forty years, propelling Nixon to the Vice Presidency in 1952, Barry Goldwater to the Republican nomination for president in 1964, Nixon to the White House in 1968, and ultimately Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, where he awarded Chambers a posthumous Medal of Freedom.

Hiss maintained his innocence until he died, despite the eventual release of secret Soviet files apparently identifying him as a spy. Perhaps Hiss felt he could not go back on his prior statements, or perhaps he remained true to communism in protecting the movement. The case helped define American politics for forty years, propelling Nixon to the Vice Presidency in 1952, Barry Goldwater to the Republican nomination for president in 1964, Nixon to the White House in 1968, and ultimately Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, where he awarded Chambers a posthumous Medal of Freedom.

8. In a famous recent trial, former football star O. J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury of the crime of murdering his wife.  The key argument in the trial was that the prosecutions' key witness, the policeman who gathered most of the evidence in the case, was shown to have lied, and the jury apparently found the argument that he may have tampered with the evidence credible, at least to the extent of giving them a "reasonable doubt."  In an apparently contradictory finding, a different jury found in a civil case ("lawsuit") that O. J. Simpson was responsible for the death of his wife, and assessed civil penalties.  Since the standards of proof is "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case, however, it is much easier to prove civil liability to a jury than it is to prove criminal guilt, and hence these results are not necessarily contradictory.

8. In a famous recent trial, former football star O. J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury of the crime of murdering his wife.  The key argument in the trial was that the prosecutions' key witness, the policeman who gathered most of the evidence in the case, was shown to have lied, and the jury apparently found the argument that he may have tampered with the evidence credible, at least to the extent of giving them a "reasonable doubt."  In an apparently contradictory finding, a different jury found in a civil case ("lawsuit") that O.J. Simpson was responsible for the death of his wife, and assessed civil penalties.  Since the standards of proof is "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case, however, it is much easier to prove civil liability to a jury than it is to prove criminal guilt, and hence these results are not necessarily contradictory.

9. [[George Zimmerman]] was prosecuted for second-degree murder due to a killing he said was in [[self-defense]].  He was unanimously acquitted by the [[jury]].

9. [[George Zimmerman]] was prosecuted for second-degree murder due to a killing he said was in [[self-defense]].  He was unanimously acquitted by the [[jury]].

[[Category:Law]]

[[Category:Law]]

[[Category:Judicial]]

[[Category:Judicial]]

[[Category:Seventh Amendment]]

[[Category:Seventh Amendment]]

[[Category:Bill of Rights]]

[[Category:Bill of Rights]]