 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
A CASE STUDY OF THE 1778-1779
PHILADELPHIA TREASON TRIALS
Carlton F.W. Larson
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547&context=smulr
"The jury was "the most excellent method for the investigation and discovery of truth; and the best guardian of both public and private liberty, which has hitherto been devised by the ingenuity of man."
trial never dropped below 59.7% for any decade between 1680 and 1800 in Pennsylvania. JACK MARIETTA & G.S. ROWE, TROUBLED EXPERIMENT: CRIME AND JUSTICE IN
PENNSYLVANIA, 1682-1800, at 46 (2006). Similarly, in Frederick County, Maryland, between 1749 and 1779, 62% of all defendants in criminal jury trials were convicted. James
D. Rice, The Criminal Trial Before and After the Lawyers: Authority, Law, and Culture in Maryland Jury Trials, 1681-1837,40 AM. J. LEGAL HIST. 455, 459 (1996); see also DOUGLAS
GREENBERG, CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE COLONY OF NEW YORK, 1691-1776, at 71 (1976) (finding that only 15% of criminal cases in eighteenth-century New York resulted in acquittal); P.J.R. King, "Illiterate Plebeians, Easily Misled": Jury Composition, Experience, and Behavior in Essex, 1713-1815, in TWELVE MEN GOOD AND TRUE: THE
CRIMINAL JURY TRIAL IN ENGLAND, 1200-1800, at 254-55 (J.S. Cockburn & Thomas A.
Green eds., 1988) (finding acquittal rate of 34% in five English counties between 1782 and
1787) [hereinafter TWELVE MEN].
"Third, the trials raised issues that spoke dramatically
to the violent and disruptive nature of the Revolution itself-the severance of ties to Great Britain and the imposition of mandatory allegiance to the new states of the American union."
Already a see a problem with this writer, there are dictators, tyrants, and enforcers of Might Makes Right on every side in every mass conflict, an example here is George Washington, who enforce "mandatory allegiance," which is slavery, or conscription, or whatever word someone might chose to label the process of enforcing a criminal order that goes against the moral conscience of the criminal's targeted victim. In Pennsylvania in particular were the Quakers, and as pacifists they showed how their moral conscience was treated by various people (individuals) on all sides in the conflict, including tyrants on the American side, as well as non-tyrants on the American side (references wanted)
"As this Article will explain, it
is most unlikely that the acquitted defendants were all factually innocent."
Again the Cult of Might Makes Right is confessed. The country (through the jury) must unanimously agree to any fact (such as "factually innocent"), and if the jury is misinformed (jury tampering) about their powers, about what is or is not a fact in the case, such as a "fact" dictated as a fact by a potentially corrupt judge, such as who has the power to determine a fact at issue: the jury, or the judge, then the "adjudication" is null and void, due to that jury tampering, by that corrupt judge. That means that the moral conscience of 12 randomly selected representatives of the whole country command the power to represent the moral conscience of the whole country, and no single so-called "Judge," has the lawful power to usurp that power to judge facts in any case, by inserting the individual "judges" own corrupt will power, at odds with the moral conscience of the entire country represented through the jury. So...with an author as corrupt as this author what is likely to be the hand picked information chosen by that author in this "study"?
"And these jurors did not serve by accident;
as this Article explains, they were carefully selected by the adroit use of peremptory challenges under a common law regime that awarded thirtyfive peremptory challenges to the defense-and none to the prosecution."
And this author does not point out the obvious effort known as jury stacking, which is known in common law as a crime, because the ideal is to find representatives of the whole country as if everyone in the whole country must agree to find guilt in fact, once guilt is proven to the whole country in fact, otherwise no government power is allowed to be "executed" by any government agent anywhere, anytime, lawfully. To select jurors that will favor a special interest (prosecutor or defendant), other than the common interest in discovering the truth that matters in the case, is to empower a special interest with special (outside the law) powers.
"Jurors repeatedly sought to mitigate the effects of the death penalty, even in those cases in which they convicted. The experienced trial jurors had much in common with the defendants they tried, and it was doubtless easy for them to imagine themselves in the defendants' shoes."
How does that not confess the fact that the government, not the jury, is assuming the power to decide what is or is not just, and what is or is not liberty according to the people themselves? That is clearly despotic.
"The statute specified seven offenses that would
constitute high treason:
(1) receiving a commission from the King of Great Britain; (2) levying war against the state or its government;
(3) aiding or assisting enemies at war with the state by joining their armies, or persuading others to join their armies;
(4) furnishing enemies with arms, ammunition, or other provisions, for their aid and comfort;
(5) carrying on a traitorous correspondence with the enemy; (6) conspiring to betray the state or the United States of America to a foreign enemy; and
(7) sending intelligence to the enemy. Two witnesses were required for conviction, and trials were to be held in courts of oyer and terminer.
Pennsylvania had traditionally tried felonies before the justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, acting under a commission of oyer and terminer, and this practice would continue under the new state constitution. The statute also defined misprision of treason, which included a variety of lesser offenses, such as discouraging enlistment in the armed forces. Misprision cases also required two witnesses and were cognizable before the justices of the peace in the courts of quarter sessions."
I am looking for references involving assembly of anything like a Grand Jury, or a panel of magistrates (non-government officials-NGO) or justices of the peace, who receive and process accusations, so as to then put the accused on trial before the country: trial by jury according to the common law.
The idea that no one would do something lawful, such as being a witness to someone leading the British Troops secretly into the local armory to take the means of defense from the defenders, and then once the witness could safely alert the other defenders about the treasonous actions perpetrated by the traitor, such as make a formal accusation that would lead to a trial by jury, because - no one would do anything - because they did not have permission written on a statute, is stupid, and servile.
"McKean was a signer of the Declaration of Independence who represented Delaware in the Continental Congress."
So this book, by this author, has his Cult of Might Makes Right dogma going full speed, but here is an opportunity to put into the flow of information a significant message:
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
"The Chief Justice, accordingly, addressed the Grand Jury to the following effect:
Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never
Page 1 U.S. 236, 237
arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. Considering the bill as an accusation grounded entirely upon the testimony in support of the prosecution, the Petty Jury receive no biass from the sanction which the indorsement of the Grand Jury has conferred upon it. But, on the other hand, would it not, in some degree, prejudice the most upright mind against the Defendant, that on a full hearing of his defence, another tribunal had pronounced it insufficient? which would then be the natural inference from every true bill. Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that it would be improper and illegal to examine the witnesses, on behalf of the Defendant, while the charge against him lies before the Grand Jury.
It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.
It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him.