A Fully Informed Jury brought to an end, in the 1690s the Salem witch trials,
when fully informed juries of the day refused to convict fifty times. The
government, finally made to understand that the people thought little of the
law, abandoned the law under which they werre being prosecuted.
In 1670, William Penn was arrested in London for preaching a Quaker sermon,
thus breaking a law that made the Church of England the only legal church. His
jurors, led by Edward Bushell, refused to convict him, despite being held for
days without food, water, tobacco, or toilet facilities - and being fined. The
four most defiant jurors were put in prison for nine weeks. The highest court of
England, upon releasing the defiant jurors, both acknowedged and established
that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Recognition of our
freedoms of religion, peaceable assembly and speech can thus all be traced to
the excercise of Fully Informed Jury power, wielded by juries unintimidated by
In 1735, John Peter Zenger was arrested for sedition when he printed the
truth about the corrupt practices of the of the Royal Governor of New York.
While the charges made by Zenger were true, the jury was told that under the
law, the truth was no defense. Zenger's attorney, Andrew Hamilton, argued to the
jury that they were judges of the merit of the law and should not go against
good conscience to convict Zenger of volating such bad law. The jurors agreed.
Zenger was acquitted in about fifteen minutes, and his case, with a Fully
Informed Jury, helped to establish the right to freedom of the press.
In 1789, Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to Thomas Paine: "I consider trial
by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held
to the principles of it's Constitution."
John Adams, America's second president, said in 1771: "It is not only [the
jurors] right, but it is 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."
Without the power to decide what facts, law and evidence are applicable,
juries cannot be a protection to the accused. If people acting in the name of
government are permitted by jurors to dictate any law whatever, they can also
unfairly dictate what evidence is admissable or inadmissable and thereby prevent
the Whole Truth from being considered. Thus, if government can manipulate and
control both the law and the evidence, the issue of fact becomes virtually
irrelevant. In reality, true justice would be denied, leaving the people with a
trial by government and not a trial by jury.
In Oak Park, Illinois, a few years ago, a gas station owner drew a gun to
defend himself against an armed robbery. Oak Park has a handgun ban, so the
prosecuter threw the book at the gas station owner. A Fully Informed Jury
speedily acquited him, although the facts seemed to clearly prove the station
owner was guilty. Was the jury acting illegally? Not at all. The jury was simply
excercising it's power to judge the law as well as the facts. The jury
apparently determined that, in this particular case, it would be unjust to
punish the gas station owner for violating the handgun prohibition.
Which of the people in the examples above would our fourteen Judiciary
Committee members in Augusta have found Guilty?