Not entirely true.
The 7th amendment was worded to prevent the courts from overturning the finding of fact by jurors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionThere is history there, as you rightly point out, due to english courts punishing jurors for "finding wrongly." (In opposition to the court's direction, despite what is actually in the Magna carta.)
No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.
to which Wikipedia states the reaction of the courts were as follows:
Largely, the earliest juries returned verdicts in accordance with the judge or the Crown. This was achieved either by "packing the jury" or by "writ of attaint". Juries were packed by hand-selecting or by bribing the jury so as to return the desired verdict. This was a common tactic in cases involving treason or sedition. In addition, the writ of attaint allowed a judge to retry the case in front of a second jury when the judge believed the first jury returned a "false verdict". If the second jury returned a different verdict, that verdict was imposed and the first jury was imprisoned or fined.
In opposition to this, the US system enshrined the 7th amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The intention here was quite clearly to prevent the kinds of abuses that were taking place under the english system previously cited, and did so by ceding absolute power in the jury.
Personally, I think this blurb on nullification from Wikipedia about sums it up:
Standard jury trial practice in the United States during the Founding Era and for several decades afterward was to argue all issues of law in the presence of the jury, so that the jury heard the same arguments the bench did in reaching his rulings on motions. This is evidenced by such decisions as the 1839 case Stettinius v. U.S., in which it was held that "The defense can argue law to the jury before the court gives instructions."[21] Later, judges began to demand the parties submit motions in writing, often before the jury was empaneled, to be argued and decided without the jury being present. This transition began with motions in limine, to exclude evidence on which it wa.s felt the jury should not hear the argument because they would be informed of the evidence to be excluded. Later that was expanded to include all legal argument, so that today, that earlier practice of arguing law before the jury has been largely forgotten, and judges even declare mistrials or overturn verdicts if legal argument is made to the jury.
It quite clearly establishes the trend from "Fully informed and empowered jury", to "Weakened jury, empowered judiciary", for the benefit and convenience of the court, with many of the same maladies that existed in the corrupt english common law system. (aside from outright bribery that is. Instead we have removal for cause to pack juries, and mistrials to retry when "false verdicts" are rendered, with "contempt of court" levied against jurors.)
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4460092 times)