U.S. ‘Constitution Guarantees Right to Trial by Jury, Not Trial by Bureaucrat’-Attorney Rob Johnson, Institute for Justice on Supreme Court Small Biz Case–Jury Power Review; plus MHMarkets Update
All of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are significant and operate under the title “the Bill of Rights.” The Constitution was ratified and became the ‘law of the land’ in the U.S. in part because of the addition of the Bill of Right, those first ten amendments. As the Declaration of Independence said, rights flow not from government but rather from the Creator of all, meaning God. The WND News Center brought to MHProNews’ attention a case which the legal nonprofit, the Institute for Justice (IJ), picked up on behalf of a small business. MHProNews has previously reported on cases picked up by the Institute for Justice (IJ) on behalf of ‘tiny house’ interests. Those tiny house cases IJ accepted ought to have inspired the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) to legally advance the interests of HUD Code manufactured homes legally, as will be shown in Part II of today’s report with analysis and commentary. A review by MHProNews’ of IJ’s media release revealed that WND’s article is largely based on their statements.
The WND News Center report is covered in Part I, which WND’s ironically ran under the headline “Move over ‘trial by jury,’ now it’s ‘trial by bureaucrat’,” which for those familiar with that source would know is obviously not an endorsement of “trial by bureaucrat” as they are consistently advocates for pro-Constitutionally limited government.
Per the Cornell Legal Information Institute (LII), here is the text for the 6th (VI Amendment).
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
The significance of this topic of trial by jury vs. trial by bureaucrat for manufactured housing independents, investors, taxpayers, and others may be obvious to any small businessperson or individual who has been faced by a similar scenario to the one described in the report that follows in Part I.
Namely, where a governmental agency is acting as “prosecutor, judge, and jury.” It is the type of thing rejected by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence. For instance, from the Bill of Rights Institute text for the Declaration of Independence were the following complaints against the British monarch. Each of the bullets that follow are pull-quotes from the document which were part of what Americans celebrated on Independence Day, July 4.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
The steady rise of apparently unconstitutional behavior and the advocacy for the same by special interests has been an uneven process that dates back well over a century. The founders believed that trial by jury was one of the key checks against oppression by government. Thus, if jury trials are essentially barred by administrative fiat, then the rights of “We the People” are being cut short or are entirely cut off.
With that preface, here is the report courtesy of the WND News Center provided by them to MHProNews.
Justice in America calls for a trial by jury of one’s peers.
There are exceptions allowed by rule, such as for minor traffic offenses and such.
But there’s a new idea now, “trial by bureaucrat,” and the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review whether that is permissible.
It is the Institute for Justice that confirmed the court will take up Jarkesy v. SEC.
Jarkesy is a case that contests the legitimacy – and constitutionality – of administrative courts staffed with agency employees.
The IJ said it has similar challenges under way in courts regarding Department of Labor in-house agency courts on behalf of small business owners in New Jersey and Maryland.
“Joe Marino, owner of Sun Valley Orchards, is fighting against devastating penalties imposed by a Department of Labor system that unconstitutionally acts as prosecutor, judge and jury,” the IJ said.
When it was at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, judges there held that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s use of in-house agency judges to impose fines and penalties on Sun Valley violated the Seventh Amendment.
“The Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury, not trial by bureaucrat,” explained Rob Johnson, a lawyer for the IJ.
“But, too often, federal agencies impose fines and penalties in agency courts, where agency employees serve as prosecutor, judge, and jury. That should frighten all Americans, but it is particularly frightening for small businesses, who, with limited resources, are forced to defend themselves for years in agency courts against potentially crushing fines.
“Now, with the Supreme Court poised to consider these issues, small businesses ensnared in agency courts can hope for relief.”
The organization sued the Department of Labor in 2021 on behalf of Sun Valley Farms, a family owned farm in New Jersey when a bureaucrat imposed over half a million dollars in fines and penalties, most of it based on a simple paperwork mistake.
The attack ended up forcing the family to sell what had been one of the largest family owned farms in New Jersey.
Then this year IJ began a similar case on behalf of C.S. Lawn & Landscape, Inc., of Maryland. That contests $55,000 in liability imposed by a DOL agency judge.
Both of those are before district courts right now.
The IJ pointed out under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Sun Valley, C.S. Lawn, and George Jarkesy should have had their arguments reviewed federal courts, and federal judges, not agency bureaucrats.
“Agency courts arose in the 1970s, and their use to impose fines and take people’s property expanded rapidly, but the Supreme Court has never really addressed whether all that should instead happen in a real court,” said IJ lawyer Bob Belden. “Agency judges constitutionally can do things like process claims for social security benefits, but if a federal agency wants to fine you tens of thousands of dollars, it should have to prove its case in a real court with a real judge and a jury.” ##
Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary
Quarterly publishing rival Kurt Kelley, J.D., made an important point when he told MHProNews that ‘predictability in law is the key to a prosperous Republic.’
The founders of the U.S. Republic, who were routinely well versed in history, had a deep distrust of government. The Declaration of Independence was an example of that distrust of the potential for abuse by governmental authority that goes too far.
The purpose of establishing ‘checks and balances’ was motivated in part by the founders’ desire to keep the federal government limited in its power and scope.
But another check on the government is trial by jury. Another check was the 2nd Amendment, the 1st amendment, and so on through the Bill of Rights. Trial by a jury of one’s peers was part of defense of the people against government overreach. As was noted in the preface above, it is enshrined in the 6th Amendment. But the 7th Amendment also deals with jury power and rights too.
According to the West Virginia Association for Justice: “By the late 800s, under the leadership of Alfred the Great, trial by a jury of one’s peers became the norm throughout England. William Blackstone, the great historian of English common law, considered the Frankish Inquest, developed in 829 A. D. as the start of the modern jury system. Created by Louis the Pious, the son of Charlemagne, it was a “jury of administrative inquiry.” Through it, royal rights were determined by a jury of 12 of the “best and most credible men” in the locality. The Frankish Inquest arrived in Britain with William the Conqueror in 1066. Less than two centuries later, the Magna Carta affirmed that trial by jury would be the standard for all subjects of the English—and later British—crown.” Note that these where historically Christians putting a check on governmental tyranny.
The WV Association for Justice also explains that: “the Magna Carta [was signed] in 1215 by King John I. The Magna Carta is the “great charter” that protected the civil liberties of English subjects and guaranteed the two great pillars of democratic society—representative government and trial by jury. Chapter 39 of the document reads, “No mal shall be taken, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”
Current Small Business Cases, and the IJ Challenge to ‘Trial By Bureaucrats” Could be Critical to Reigning in Government Overreach – Trial by Jury is a Key Check That’s Been Hobbled by a Lack of Information
MHProNews has periodically raised in articles the importance of the “absolute” power of the jury to judge both the law and the facts of the case. That “absolute” right has arguably been wrongfully manipulated in the U.S. for decades. Some prior reports on that topic, which includes the right for jurors to “nullify” the law regardless of the facts of a specific case, are found in reports like the ones posted below.
Those types of articles are routinely among the more popular reports on MHProNews, some even years after those articles were originally posted. On this site with thousands of posts of various lengths, they may be in the top 1 percent or less of the articles accessed repeatedly in any given month. While that visitor traffic is ‘good’ for our platform, it is also an indicator that there is not nearly enough known about jury rights by the general public. If jury rights were well known by most citizens, then those articles would likely not be as popular as they have been, and which this article may also be.
To the extend that MHProNews acts as an advocate for the manufactured home industry and for the American Dream, which arguably can’t be achieved absent God-given and Constitutionally protected rights, such reports are an important part of the wide range of topics covered here. Regrettably, similar reports are not found elsewhere in the balance of MHVille trade media.
FamGuardian
FamGaurdian.org has this list of quotations relative to the rights and powers of the jury to try both law and facts, including the right of a juror to vote “not guilty” regardless of the facts in a case. Their title for this listing was “Legal Research on Jury Nullification.” While MHProNews would editorially observe that the conclusion they came to was a bit dark, much of their quotations and thesis are quite apt to the topic raised by the IJ lawsuit.
Jury nullification is the power and ability of a criminal trial jury, federal or state, to acquit the defendant not only on the “facts” of the case but to declare the law illegal, nonsensical, or otherwise simply not justifiably enforceable. I.e., the jury can “nullify” the law.
That is not the position take by our modern courts.
The correct principle of law, as I shall demonstrate, is given in the dissenting opinion of this case, starting on page 296. This dissent is the one frequently quoted by FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association, Post Office Box 59, Helmville, Montana 59843. That dissent holds that,
“The judge, by instructing the jury that they were bound to accept the law as given to them by the court, denied their right to decide the law.” Sparf at 297 (dissent).
Dissents are not followed as “law” by succeeding courts, they are merely disagreements with the holding of the majority. As one Supreme Court critic put it, “with five votes [out of nine] you can do anything.”
…[several paragraphs about English history on juries are omitted].
This was not the law in the United States.
“The defense can argue law to the jury before the court gives instructions.”
[Stettinius v. United States, Federal Case No. 13,387 (C.Ct. D.C. 1839), 22 Federal Cases 1322, 1333 quoting United States v. Fenwick, Federal Case No. 15,086 (1836).]
” Judges in some western and southern states were not allowed to state law (to overcome judicial interference)”
[5 The Law Reporter 1, 10 (1842).]
“An impartial jury was required by the common law and secured by the constitution.”
[Marshall, Chief Justice, United States v. Burr, Federal Case No. 14,692g (C.Ct. D. Va. 1807).]
“[H]istorical practice is relevant to what the Constitution means by such concepts as trial by jury.”
Under the common law, as expounded by Sir John Hawles, the jury had the right to judge the laws as well as the facts. Anything less made the jury partial in favor of the judge. If the judge was biased in favor of the State, the defendant, guilty as sin or innocent as a lamb, didn’t have a prayer.
Supposedly, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, “indifferent” jurors. The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. Irvin v. Dowd, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642 (1961).
At least that’s the rhetoric.
” [T]he ability of the judge to communicate his opinions to the jury through raised eyebrows, choice bits of sarcasm, and questioning the witnesses strays into advocacy.” Bracy v. Gramley, 81 F. 3d 684, 701 (7th Cir. 1996) (dissent).
Few claims are more difficult to resolve than the claim that the trial judge, presiding over a jury trial, has thrown his weight in favor of one side to such an extent that it cannot be said that the trial has been a fair one. Bracy at 702.
It is my contention that no criminal trial in the United States is a fair one by those standards. The arrogance, bias, partiality, venality and corruption of almost all our federal and state judges are too easily demonstrated.
Let the judges speak for themselves:
The trial court denied defendant’s request to instruct the jury on his asserted doctrine of jury nullification. The court also denied the government’s motion to prohibit the use of this term during the proceedings and, as a result, Krzyske mentioned the doctrine of jury nullification in his closing argument. During its deliberation the jury asked the court what the doctrine stood for. The court responded, “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. Your obligation is to follow the instructions of the Court as to the law given to you. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought in a verdict contrary to the law given you in this case.” Defendant objected and claims it was error for the court to so instruct the jury.
Krzyske defines jury nullification as a jury’s power to return a verdict of not guilty despite law and facts indicating guilt under the indictment. Krzyske acknowledges at the same time that no federal court has yet specifically permitted a jury nullification instruction and that few courts have even permitted arguments to the jury on the topic urging this “doctrine.” He claims that this case is unique because the court specifically told the jury that there is no such thing as valid jury nullification.
We recently addressed the question of jury nullification in United States v. Avery, 717 F. 2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 1683 (1984), in the following terms:
Defendant’s final contention is that the district court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct the jury that it had the power to acquit the defendant even though he was guilty of the charged offense. The instruction itself reads that “a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government’s position.”
This argument is completely without merit. Although jurors may indeed have the power to ignore the law, their duty is to apply the law as interpreted by the court and they should be so instructed.
Id.
at 1027 (citations omitted). A jury’s “right” to reach any verdict it wishes does not, however, infringe on the duty of the court to instruct the jury only as to the correct law applicable to the particular case.
The right of a jury, as a buffer between the accused and the state, to reach a verdict despite what may seem clear law must be kept distinct from the court’s duty to uphold the law and to apply it impartially. This has been recognized by the Supreme Court in Horning v. District of Columbia, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54 (1920), where Justice Holmes stated, “[T]he jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts. But the judge always has the right and duty to tell them what the law is upon this or that state of facts . . .” This directive has been recognized by this court in United States v. Burkhart, 501 F. 2d 993, 996-97 (6th Cir. 1974), where we approved a district court’s instruction that the jury consider only the facts and law before them. In light of Horning, Avery, and Burkhart, we are compelled to approve the district court’s refusal to discuss jury nullification with the jury. To have given an instruction on nullification would have undermined the impartial determination of justice based on law.
Thus, we find no merit in the defendant’s objection concerning the court’s instructions to the jury.
Based on the analysis above, we AFFIRM the district court in all respects.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I disagree with the Court’s disposition of this case. I would reverse the case and remand it for a new trial. It is clear to me that the District Court erred in responding to the jury’s specific question concerning “jury nullification” raised after several hours of jury deliberation. The jury returned to the courtroom concerned about the issue of “jury nullification.” The jury wanted to know to what extent it had the right to acquit the defendant because it disagreed with the government’s prosecution. It wanted to know what was meant by the idea of “jury nullification.” The Court responded by telling the jury that it had no power to engage in jury nullification and that was the end of the matter. It told the jury in effect that it had no general authority to veto the prosecution. This is simply error. The Court should have explained the jury’s function in our system. Our Court has made it clear in the past that the jury does have veto power and the jury should have been so instructed. For example, in United States v. Wilson, 629 F. 2d 439, 443 (6th Cir. 1980), in an opinion which I wrote for a unanimous panel we stated:
In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government’s position. It has a general veto power, and this power should not be attenuated by requiring the jury to answer in writing a detailed list of questions or explain its reasons. The jury’s veto power was settled in Throckmorton’s case in 1544 according to Professor Plucknett:
In Crompton’s treatise on the jurisdiction of courts (1594) we read:
“Note that the London jury which acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, Knight, about the first year of Queen Mary, of high treason, was called into the Star Chamber in October, 1544 (sic), forasmuch as the matter was held to have been sufficiently proved against him; and eight of them were there fined in great sums, at least five hundred pounds each, and remanded back to prison to dwell there until further order were taken for their punishment. The other four were released, because they submitted and confessed that they had offended in not considering the truth of the matter.”
* * *
Throckmorton’s prominent share in Wyatt’s rebellion put his guilt beyond the slightest question, but he was a protestant hero to the Londoners, and the jury’s verdict was purely political. From now onwards the jury enters on a new phase of its history, and for the next three centuries it will exercise its power of veto on the use of the criminal law against political offenders who have succeeded in obtaining popular sympathy. Plucknett,
A Concise History of The Common Law
133-34 (5th ed. 1956).
The District Court gave short shrift to this legal tradition and made no effort to explain to the jury its historical role as the protector of the rights of the accused in a criminal case. Our Court unfortunately has done no better.
I would reverse the case and remand it for a new trial with instructions that the Court advise the jury, if requested, concerning the jury’s general veto power,” in accordance with the Wilson case and the historical prerogatives of the jury to return a general verdict of not guilty.
ON REHEARING
MERRITT, Circuit Judge, dissenting. For the reasons stated in my panel dissent, I would grant en banc rehearing on the “jury nullification” issue. The law is settled that the jury has the power to decide against the law and the facts. The jury specifically asked about its power to do so, and was told by the District Court that it had no such power. The least that the jury should have been told was “the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts . . . the technical right, if it can be called so, to decide against the law and the facts . . .” Horning v. District of Columbia, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54 (1920). These were the words of Justice Holmes speaking for the Court. The Supreme Court has never taken these words back or indicated that they do not properly state the law. The District Court and our Court are simply refusing to apply these words because they do not agree with them. It is not our prerogative to overrule the Supreme Court.
[U. S. v. Krzyske, 836 F. 2d 1013, 1021-22 (6th Cir. 1988).]
The following words of the Supreme Court need to be read several times by the judges of today’s courts.
“The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. (Footnote 23)
Footnote 23: “The [jury trial] clause was clearly intended to protect the accused from oppression by the Government. * * *.” Singer v. United States, 85 S.Ct. 783, 788 (1965), “The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.” P. Devlin, Trial by Jury 164 (1956). (End of Footnote)
Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it. Beyond this, the jury trial provisions in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power–a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power, so typical of our State and Federal Governments in other respects, found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence. The deep commitment of the Nation to the right of jury trial in serious criminal cases as a defense against arbitrary law enforcement qualifies for protection under the Dues Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and must therefore be respected by the States.”
Duncan v. State of Louisiana, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1451 (1968).
The problem is that we have judges making decisions they have no right to make. This is not anything new.
“In the state courts, New York’s Court of Appeals split on the question [of jury nullification] in 1804, and finally denied the right in 1863. A Massachusetts attorney risked contempt by arguing law contrary to the direction of the court in 1808, and by doing so he obtained an acquittal for his client. The same year, the jury was given the right by statute to decide law as well as fact, but the jurors had the option to return a special verdict for a general verdict subject to the opinion of the court on a point stated. This statute was repealed in 1836, but it was held permissible for a lawyer to argue law contrary to the direction of the court in 1847, although the jury was charged to take its law from the court. A statute gave the jury the power to decide law in criminal cases in 1855, but, despite this statute, the supreme court of the state held that law was for the judge to decide.”
[Moore, The Jury, Tool of Kings, Palladium of Liberty, page 151 (1973).]
Jeremy Bentham, a noted English legal scholar, had a few choice words to say about where we get our judges from:
“Filling the bench from no other fund than the bar, is it not exactly such a mode as if boarding-school-mistresses and governesses, were never to be chosen but from brothels?”
[Moore, page 159.]
“Judges are the chief competition to the jury.”
Moore, page 159.
As competition the rulings of judges concerning jury nullification make sense, even if such rulings are in fact unconstitutional. Courts must presume…
“that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the trial court’s instructions in a criminal case.”
[Francis v. Franklin, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1976 note 9 (1985), and that they follow those instructions. United States v. Houlihan, 92 F. 3d 1271, 1287 (1st Cir. 1996).]
“Jurors do not have to be informed of jury nullification power or possible sentence.”
United States v. Calhoun, 49 F. 3d 231, 236 note 6 (6th Cir. 1995).
“Jurors possess raw power . . . which defense counsel may not press for.”
Scarpa v. Dubois, 38 F. 3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 1994).
“The question of whether an offense is a crime of violence for purposes of use of firearm is a question of law which should not be submitted to the jury.”
United States v. Credit, 95 F. 3d 362, 364 (5th Cir. 1996).
How did we get in this mess?
“[T]his Court’s constitutional decisions are grounded upon fundamental principles whose context does not change dramatically from year to year, but whose meanings are altered slowly and subtly as generation succeeds generation.” [Yates v. Aiken, 108 S.Ct. 534, 537 (1988), 484 U.S. 211.]
That is, if the lower courts follow that decision, a dubious proposition in lights of Judge Merrit’s last sentence in his dissent in U. S. v. Krzyske.
However, there is another way to nullify a bad law that no one in modern times even considers.
Decisionmakers (jury or judge) must rely on the jury’s factual findings as to the disputed issues of fact. Acosta v. City and County of San Francisco, 83 F. 3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 1996).
Now let’s break this down into a hypothetical situation. Assume you are on a jury and you are faced with a defendant in a criminal case caught with a sawed-off shotgun. The judge tells you, “You must obey the law as I give it to you, you are to judge the facts.”
The law is obviously unconstitutional, no matter what your competitor (the judge) says.
The fact is up to you to determine. If you tell the judge, “That is a broomstick, not a sawed-off shotgun,” he must accept that as a fact. He has no choice. And, finding that the object of the prosecution for a sawed-off shotgun is–according to your verdict, a broomstick–you must acquit.
Such conduct on the part of juries, going so far as to change the historical facts of a case in order to render a verdict the jurors thought just, was a common practice in England for hundreds of years. Green, Verdict According to Conscience (1985).
Today one also has the advantage of refusing to believe the usual parade of bribed, lying, and otherwise untrustworthy government witnesses.
Verdict According to Conscience makes interesting reading in other respects:
“John Lillburne, leader of the Levallers, appealed to the juries in his case [treason] to be “as judges of law as well as fact,” in 1649. The jury acquitted him.”
[Page 153.]
“Coercion of jurors (today known as ‘jury instructions’) meant the loss by Englishmen of control over the law.”
[Page 154.]
Unfortunately, even if jury nullification becomes as widespread as it was in the nineteenth century, it would avail most criminal defendants absolutely nothing. Most criminal defendants these days are terrorized into “plea bargains” by the threat of the imposition of harsh penalties if they dare to participate in a jury trial system they are already aware is “rigged” by the judge and the prosecutor anyway. Only the bravest, the craziest, and the richest (like O. J. Simpson) even consider jury trial. ##
Jury Rights
There are numbers of websites that have pages dedicated to the topic of jury rights, which include a list of court decisions and remarks by the founders and others on the topic.
As the West Virgina Association for Justice noted: “Thomas Jefferson wrote, “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.”
As was previously noted, the 7th Amendment also preserves the right to trial by jury. According to the federal Constitution annotated website is the following.
Seventh 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.”
As U. S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1939, “It is essential that the right of trial by jury be scrupulously safeguarded as the bulwark of civil liberty. Our duty to preserve the 7th Amendment is a matter of high constitutional importance.”
As big government and big business seemingly become more closely aligned and use resources not generally available to the everyday citizen, understanding, using, and defending the right to trial by jury is essential.
During jury selection, some who are potential jurors who are informed of their rights to judge the law and the facts have to consider the possibility that they may be removed during the voir dire process for consideration to serve on a jury by some acting on behalf of plaintiff’s counsel in a civil matter, or by prosecutors in a criminal case. Potentially informed jurors will have to weigh that before answering questions during voir dire on that topic.
While the concerns about FamGuardian.org above in their closing remarks may be understandable, it does not mean citizens should seek to avoid jury trials. Scores of historic decisions have been handed down by juries that may never have been achieved in cases tried and decided by ‘bureaucrats.’
The solution to the lack of individuals who could be potential jurors, as in so much of what’s going wrong in America, is to educate our fellow citizens about their jury rights and powers. Stop and think for a moment about a hypothetical case where you may be on a jury panel. While voting is an important right, the jury ‘vote’ is in some ways a more powerful vote. A vote of ‘not guilty’ could be a check on potential governmental abuse. Thus it is important that you know your rights. That when called upon, that you use your jury rights. That you share your understanding of the power to be a check against runaway government in the jury box. Share your rights with your friends by forwarding a link on this article to your trusted circle of friends. ##
There are scores of such quotes, including in case law, that underscores the historic and enduring right for a juror to act according to his or her conscience, even if it defies judge’s instructions or means “nullifying” the law in question in a given case.
Judge Denies Biden Request to Delay Social Media Order
A federal judge in Louisiana denied a request by the Biden administration to delay an order he imposed last week banning federal officials from communicating with social media companies, Bloomberg reported. [Full Story]
Cline: ‘Fireworks’ When Wray Testifies
Blaine Holt: Biden Wrong to Say US ‘Low’ on Ammunition | video
Giuliani: WH Coke ‘Cover-Up Going On’ | video
Whitaker: Congressional Probe on WH Cocaine Warranted | video
McLaughlin: Biden’s Legal Woes Will Keep Him in Race | video
Tata: Tighten NATO Funding Before Adding States | video
Ben Carson: Biden’s Decline Becoming Dangerous | video
Fmr Amb. Volker: NATO Should Add Ukraine ‘Soon’ | video
Pat Fallon: WH May Know Cocaine Culprit | video
Newsfront
FAU Poll: Trump 20 Points Up on DeSantis
While Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are popular among Florida voters, the former president leads by 20 points in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, according to a new poll from Florida Atlantic University-Mainstreet PolCom Lab… [Full Story]
NATO Chief: Erdogan Agrees to Swiftly Send Sweden’s to Turkey Parliament
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Turkey President Recep [Full Story] | video
Ex-CNN Reporter Sues, Claims Discrimination in Firing
A former CNN reporter is suing her former employer after she was [Full Story]
Burgum: Won’t Sign Federal Abortion Ban If Elected
On Sunday, Doug Burgum, the Republican governor of North Dakota and [Full Story]
Despite Bud Light, Backlash, Brands Still Going ‘Woke’
Seemingly undeterred by the potential for massive financial [Full Story] | Platinum Article
Serbia, Montenegro Presidents Cool Feud
The presidents of Serbia and Montenegro agreed Monday to try to patch [Full Story]
Fox News Stock Downgraded as Viewership Plummets
Israel Tests David’s Sling Aerial Defense System
The Israel Defense Forces successfully completed a variety of [Full Story]
Zelenskyy: Ukrainian Forces Advance in South
Ukrainian troops pressed on with their campaign to recapture [Full Story]
Russian Gen. Gerasimov Appears in Video After Failed Mutiny
Western Allies Finalize Ukraine Security Assurances as NATO Meets
Biden: Ukraine Not Ready for NATO Membership
Congressional Democrats Raise Concerns on Cluster Bombs for Ukraine
Zelenskyy Eyes ‘Best Possible Result’ From NATO Summit
Jamie Foxx Seen for First Time Since Health Scare
Jamie Foxx has been spotted for the first time in public since he was [Full Story]
Tests Show Interstellar Iron Could Be From Alien Craft
Early testing on “anomalous” fragments recovered from an interstellar [Full Story] | Platinum Article
Citigroup Cuts Rating on US Stocks to ‘Neutral’
Citigroup on Monday downgraded U.S. stocks in anticipation of a [Full Story]
Goldman Sachs: India to Be 2nd Largest Economy by 2075
India, which is currently the fifth largest economy in the world, is [Full Story] | video
Rasmussen Poll: GOP Has 7 Point Lead on Taxes Issue
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey [Full Story]
Judge Denies Biden Request to Delay Social Media Order
A federal judge in Louisiana denied a request by the Biden [Full Story]
Suspect in Fatal 1982 Tylenol Poisonings Dies at 76
The suspect in the 1982 Tylenol poisonings that killed seven people [Full Story]
Vanguard Vs. Fidelity Vs. Schwab
Georgia Mayor Arrested for Trespassing
A Georgia mayor was arrested for breaking into a lake house he [Full Story]
Schumer: Insulin, Drug Reform, Ethics on Agenda
Democrats in the Senate intend this month to focus on legislation [Full Story]
Ken Griffey Jr. Drawn into Bud Light Controversy
Baseball legend Ken Griffey Jr. has been drawn into the ongoing [Full Story]
Murphy: Biden ‘Depressing Moral Authority’ of US
Chris Murphy, D-Conn., warned the Biden administration and [Full Story]
US Census: Record Number of Americans Living Alone
With Americans marrying later, if at all, about 29% of households [Full Story]
Nigel Farage: ‘No Hope’ of Bank Account in UK
British broadcaster and former Brexit Party Leader Nigel Farage said [Full Story]
EU Probes Reports of Weight-loss Drugs’ Suicide Risks
The European Medicines Agency is looking into Novo Nordisk’s [Full Story]
Kremlin: Prigozhin Met Putin After Rebellion
The Kremlin said on Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin met [Full Story]
Flooding Overwhelms N.Y. Roadways, Killing 1
Heavy rain sparked extreme flooding in New York’s Hudson Valley that [Full Story]
50 Cent Says LA ‘Finished’ After No-Bail Policy
Rapper 50 Cent expressed concern about the continuing crime problem [Full Story]
Senior US Diplomat to Travel for Sudan Conflict Talks
The U.S. assistant secretary of State for African affairs, Molly [Full Story]
RFK Jr.: Wrong to Send Cluster Munitions to Ukraine
Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. strongly [Full Story]
4 Killed in TikTok Boat Jumping Trend Attempts
At least four people have been killed in recent months while trying a [Full Story]
Isolated Chimp Makes Friends at New Home
In a heartwarming tale of resilience and fellowship, a long-isolated [Full Story]
Israel to Stem Palestinian Authority Collapse
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet on Sunday [Full Story]
Ears Ringing? if You Have Tinnitus, Do This Immediately!
Health Products View
More Newsfront
Finance
Yellen: US Will Listen to China’s Complaints on Tech Export Curbs
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says Washington will listen to Chinese complaints about security-related curbs on U.S. technology exports and might “respond to unintended consequences” as she ended a visit to Beijing aimed at reviving strained relations…. [Full Story]
Alex Acosta to Newsmax: Recession ‘Likely’ Due to Spending
House Republicans to Grapple With Wall Street Over ESG
Carl Icahn Unties Personal Loans From IEP’s Share Price: WSJ
Electric Car Sales Not Matching Increased Output
More Finance
Health
How Doctors Avoid Getting Sick When Traveling
Looking forward to an adventurous or relaxing summer vacation or weekend away? Unfortunately, along with beaches and cultural sights, many travelers encounter new germs while away and come down with a bad cold, digestive issues, or other illnesses. To prevent a vacation…… [Full Story]
