Why Is Trial by Jury Important?
The Juror has the Right and Duty to find the Verdict according to his or her judgement on whether the law is just.
The DEMOCRACY DEFINED Campaign for RESTORATION and Universal Adoption of Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury.
The DEMOCRACY DEFINED CAMPAIGN is a not-
The (authentic) Trial by Jury British Justice System is revered at home and respected abroad as the finest and most democratic form of law enforcement ever devised. Worldwide honour derived from one phenomenon: Constitutional Law Magna Carta, the Great Charter of English Liberties, first passed in 1215; for this emplaces the definitive Trial by Jury. This Trial by Jury is also enshrined within the U.S. Constitution, reaffirmed by every president by oath at inauguration. Magna Carta is law throughout Britain, being ratified thirty-
Our Constitutions emplace Trial by Jury as the sole system for all civil, criminal and fiscal lawsuits; and institute the Right and Duty of Jurors to acquit as Not Guilty, according to the Juror’s conscience, citizens tried under law which the Juror judges to be oppressive or unfair (i.e. Jury Nullification); and the Jury (not judges) are required to review all evidence to decide on its admissibility. Jurors decide the Verdict not simply on whether evidence indicates a defendant broke the law: in Trial by Jury, Jurors have the Duty to decide the Verdict by judging also whether the law under which the defendant is tried, is Just.
However complicated the facts of a case are (and it is for the plaintiff to make his cause clear), it is axiomatic that, literate or not, all sane adult men and women can recognise injustice. It takes no special learning for an adult to know when a law is just. This is the special virtue of our Constitution: (in addition to determining innocence or guilt, and apportioning retribution) Trial by Jury is emplaced to protect citizens for all time from unjust laws and arbitrary government.
Neither in Britain nor in the U.S. have legislatures ever been invested by the People with authority to remove the Right of the accused to a Trial by Jury, to impair the powers, to change the oaths, or abridge the jurisdiction of jurors.
In democratic societies, the trial of a citizen is by fellow citizens who comprise the Jury. Trial is not “trial-
Prosecutors, judges, police and prison service are employed to enforce governments’ laws and should never be asked, nor relied on, to decide impartially whether laws are just, for they must fulfil their task or face the fury of the government, their employer. Judges themselves comprise a branch of government, and they are in the pay of government. For these reasons, government, politicians and the judiciary are incompetent to require the conviction or punishment of any person for any offence whatever.
The Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System intentionally takes a person out of the government’s hands and places the accused under the protection of his or her equals (the jury) and the Common Law alone: Trial by Jury allows no man or woman to be punished unless the indiscriminately chosen equals of the accused consent to it, following Trial in which Jurors try: the facts of the case, the law, and decide on the admissibility of evidence. Anything less, or different, is not Trial by Jury, but trial by someone else.
Other nations, such as the United States of America when independent, adopted Trial by Jury. President John Adams, lawyer, pronounced about the Juror:
“It is not only his Right but his Duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
(Yale Law Journal.)
The Principle is explained as follows: If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that was once the Citizen’s safeguard of liberty.
The following is also poignantly relevant:
The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there was time.
In this matter, good men and women who stand up against tyranny are of one mind:
Viz. U.S. Chief Justice Samuel Chase: “The Jury has the Right to determine both the law and facts.”
viz. U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, Democratic Party Founder: “I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
More recently, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “The Jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” And viz. U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided.”
In 1972, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled: “the jury has unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge.”
WHY is the Citizen-
See THE REPORT, ISBN: 9781902848204, endorsed by academics and U.S. & U.K. Judges:
“All governments are capable of passing oppressive, i.e. illegal laws, and organising enforcement of such laws. Juries limited to deciding innocence or guilt only on evidence produced by the state prosecutor of whether the accused has broken a law, would not be able to protect good Citizens from oppressions of the state. Juries instructed to judge on the justice of law and its enforcement can be relied upon to protect people from the state, when the state breaches correct behaviour in attempting to enforce injustices.”
Today, there are scores of unjust, persecutory British, European and U.S. laws and regulations being routinely and illegally enforced by judges.
Today, a government-
Whatever the judge’s motives, the judge is wrong not to inform jurors of their Right and Duty to do justice: e.g., State of Georgia v. Brailsford, a Supreme Court forfeiture trial, the facts having been ascertained, U.S. Chief Justice John Jay instructed jurors that it remained only for them to judge the law itself, saying:
“The Jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
Under Constitutional Trial by Jury, jurors not only render the verdict according to their conscience, but also decide the sentence for criminals. The Jury’s powers are nowadays illicitly destroyed by court decisions, procedures, and by the creation of illegal ‘laws’ which deny jury trials for the accused. When judges instead of juries run trials, innocent citizens are persecuted under unjust laws; prisons are filled with harmless and innocent people, while dangerous criminals go free.
Removal of justice/equity issues from jurors transforms Trial by Jury into the inherently unlawful trial-
A cause for Repeal of the infamous crime-
Though Penn and Mead broke the law, the jury's authority to acquit supersedes government and court. Reviewing the case, Chief Justice Vaughan confirmed the Right of Jurors to judge the justice of laws, upholding this defining Safeguard of Democracy, sine qua non, an indispensable Principle for all time.
“If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-
U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone; 1941-
ATTENTION ALL CITIZENS:
Unresisted and emboldened, politicians and judiciary have destroyed Trial by Jury and in its place installed the overt tyranny of the state-
RESISTANCE to tyranny is the duty of every citizen who wishes to live in a free country.
Act against growing injustice !
Campaign with us for RESTORATION.
To become a DEMOCRACY DEFINED Educational Activist today, print-