FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1052   1053   1054   1055   1056   1057   1058   1059   1060   1061   1062   1063   1064   1065   1066   1067   1068   1069   1070   1071   1072   1073   1074   1075   1076  
1077   1078   1079   1080   1081   1082   1083   1084   1085   1086   1087   1088   1089   1090   1091   1092   1093   1094   1095   1096   1097   1098   1099   1100   1101   >>   >|  
You may judge for yourselves; and if you should feel it your duty to differ from us, you must find your verdict accordingly. At the same time, it is our duty to say that it is in perfect accordance with the spirit of our legal institutions that the courts should decide questions of law, and the juries of facts. The nature of the tribunals naturally leads to this division of powers; and it is better, for the sake of public justice, that it should be so. When the law is settled by a court there is more certainty than when done by a jury. It will be better known and more respected in public opinion. But if you are prepared to say that the law is different from what you have heard from us, you are in the exercise of a constitutional right to do so. In United States _vs._ Porter (1 Bald., 108), the doctrine was stated more guardedly, as follows: In repeating what was said on a former occasion to another jury, that you have the power to decide on the law as well as the facts of this case, and are not bound to find according to our opinion of the law, we feel ourselves constrained to make some explanations not then deemed necessary, but now called for from the course of the defense. You may find a general verdict of guilty or not guilty as you think proper, or may find the facts specially, and leave the guilt or innocence of the prisoner to the judgment of the court. If your verdict acquits the prisoner, we can not grant a new trial, however much we may differ with you as to the law which governs the case; and, in this respect, a jury are the judges of law if they choose to become so. In Farmer's trial before the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire in 1821, the Chief-Justice, speaking for the whole court, told the jury that they were the judges both of the law and the fact; that It was the duty of the court to give them proper instructions and to aid them in forming a correct opinion as to the law applicable to the case. But if, contrary to his intentions, any expression should escape him which might seem to indicate any opinion as to the facts, they must
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1052   1053   1054   1055   1056   1057   1058   1059   1060   1061   1062   1063   1064   1065   1066   1067   1068   1069   1070   1071   1072   1073   1074   1075   1076  
1077   1078   1079   1080   1081   1082   1083   1084   1085   1086   1087   1088   1089   1090   1091   1092   1093   1094   1095   1096   1097   1098   1099   1100   1101   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

opinion

 

verdict

 
public
 

prisoner

 

judges

 

proper

 

decide

 

guilty

 

differ

 

defense


governs

 

called

 

specially

 

innocence

 

judgment

 

acquits

 
general
 

respect

 

Justice

 

forming


correct

 

applicable

 

instructions

 

contrary

 
escape
 

intentions

 

expression

 
Supreme
 

Farmer

 
Hampshire

speaking
 
deemed
 

choose

 

justice

 

powers

 

division

 

naturally

 
settled
 
certainty
 

tribunals


nature

 
perfect
 
accordance
 

spirit

 

juries

 

questions

 
courts
 

institutions

 

respected

 

prepared