BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF TRIAL BY JURY

“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely, except where

reference to the Common Law and to British Institutions as they were when the
instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the convention
who submitted it to the ratification of the thirteen States, were born and brought
up in the atmosphere of the Common Law and thought and spoke in its
vocabulary. . . when they came to put their conclusions into the form of
Fundamental Law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of Common
Law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”
(Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87)

On June 15, 1215, A.D., King John, of England, signed the “Magna Carta” or “Great

Charter”, at Runneymede. Contained therein, were the Demands and Rights of

Citizens, of that kingdom. This of course included the RIGHT to Trial By Jury.”

Magna Carta, Section 39:

“No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or deceased, or outlawed, or exiled, or

IN ANY MANNER HARMED – nor will we go upon or send upon him – SAVE
BY THE LAWFUL JUDGMENT OF HIS PEERS OR BY THE LAW OF THE
LAND.”

And further provided a Protective Mandate for the enumerated Demands and Rights, to

wit:

Magna Carta, Section 40:

“To none will we Sell, to none Deny or Delay, Right or Justice.”
The provisions of the Magna Carta stated above, set forth the Proper and Lawful
Right to “Trial By Jury”, and the Mandated “Due Process.”
“The words ‘Due Process’ are intended to convey the same meaning as the words
‘By The Law Of The Land’, in the Magna Carta.
(Murray vs. Hoboken Land Co., 59 U.S.(18How) 272)

The mandated provision of “Trial By Jury” and its necessary import, were

described in Blackstone’s Commentaries, to wit:

 Chapter XXV, Section IV, (pg. 1023):
“The ‘Trial By Jury’, or ‘The Country’, per patriam, is also that Trial by the peers
of every Englishman, which, as the Grand Bulkwark Of His Liberties, is secured to
him by the Great Charter. . .”

Some of the powers of the Jury were described on page 1030, Blackstone’s,

Supra, to wit:

“When the evidence on both sides is closed, and indeed when any evidence hath

been given, the jury cannot be discharged (unless in case of evident necessity) till

they have given in their verdict; but are to considerate, and deliver it in, with the

same forms as upon civil causes: only they cannot, in a criminal case which touches

life or member, give a privy verdict. But the judges may adjourn while the jury

are withdrawn to confer, and return to receive the verdict in open court. And

such public or open verdict may be general, Guilty, or Not Guilty; or Special,

setting forth all the circumstances of the case, and praying the judgment of the

court, whether for instance, or the facts stated, it be murder, manslaughter, or No

Crime At All. This is where they doubt the matter of law, and therefore choose to

leave it to the determination of the court.

If the jury therefore find the prisoner not guilty, he is then and forever quite and
discharged of the accusation. And the such acquittal, or discharge for want of
prosecution, he shall be immediately set at large without payment to the jailer.
But if the jury find him guilty, he is then said to be convicted of the crime whereof
he stands indicted. Which conviction may accrue two ways; either by his
confessing the offense and pleading guilty; or by his being found so by verdict of
his country.”

Trial by jury was known, introduced and practiced in England long before the formation of

the Magna Carta or Great Charter.

“The origin of this venerable institution of the Common Law is lost in the
obscurity of the middle ages. Antiquarians trace it back to an early period of

2
 English history; but if known to the Saxons, it must have existed in a very crude
form, and may have been derived from them from the mode of administering
justice by peers of litigant parties, under the feudal institutions of France, Germany
and other northern nations of Europe. The ancient ordeals of red-hot iron and
boiling water, practiced by the Anglo-Saxons to test innocence of party accused of
a crime, gradually gave way to a wager of battle, in the days of Normans; while
this latter mode of trial disappeared in Civil cases in the thirteenth century, when
Henry II, introduced into the assize a Trial By Jury. It is referred to in the Magna
Carta as an institution existing in England at the time; and its subsequent history is
well known.
(See: Grand Assize; 3 Blackstone’s Commentaries, 349; 1 Reeve, History of
English Law, 23, 84; Glanville, c. 9; Bracton 155)

“This mode of Trial Jury was adopted soon after the conquest of England, by
William, and was fully established for the trial of civil suits in the reign of Henry
II.”
(Crabb’s C.L., 50, 51)

This Bulkwark of Liberty, was the established Rule and Law in England and the Colonies,

although in the latter, Grossly Abused by and through Usurpation by the English Crown,

and the Magistrates under his direct influence and control. This fact was noted in the

Declaration of Rights, in Congress, at New York, on October 19, 1765, to wit:

“The Congress. . .upon mature deliberation, agreed to the following Declaration

Of Rights and grievances of the colonists in America. . .
2d That his Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the Inherent
and Invaluable Right of Every British subject in these colonies.”

The pleadings and Petitions of the colonists, were as a matter of history and record,

ignored, and their rights were as a matter of history and record, ignored , and their Rights

were further violated and usurped, as noted by the Declaration Of Rights, in Congress, at

Philadelphia, on October 14, 1774, to wit:

“. . .Resolved N. C. D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the Common

Law of England, and more especially to the great inestimable privilege of being
Tried By Their Peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that Law. . .”

3
The continued Arbitrary acts of the crown, were greatly expidited by a corrupt and

prejudicial Judiciary, which resulted in the “Declaration Of Independence” which was

adopted in Congress, July 4, 1776.

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the
Law of Nature and Nature’s God Entitle Them, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the cause which impel them to
separate. . . .”

“. . . .To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”

“He has refused his assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the
public good.”
“He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws
establishing judiciary powers.”
“He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their office, and
the amount and payment of their salaries.”
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
Constitution, and unacknowledged by Our Laws; giving his assent to their acts of
pretended legislation:”
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial By Jury:”
“For taking away our charters, Abolishing Our Most Valuable Laws, and altering
fundamentally the form of our governments. . . .”

It is held that in order to understand the provisions set forth in the Constitution, numerous

areas must be examined.

“In the construction of the Constitution, we must look to the history of the times,
and examine the state of things existing when it was framed and adopted.” (2
Wheat 354; 6 Wheat 416; 4 Poters 431, 432)

This is of course necessary:

“To ascertain the old Law, the Mischief, and the Remedy.”
(The State of Rhode Island Vs. The State of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657)

The Fundamental Law was commonly understood by the people, and this of course

included Trial By Jury.

4
 The concept and provision set forth in Article III, Section 2, was discussed in the

Constitutional Convention, on August 28, 1787, and the provisions stated therein were

amended, Nemine Contradicente, no one dissenting.

In presenting the Constitutional concepts to the States and to the people, Alexander

Hamilton, expounded on the sentiment of those present at the Constitutional Convention,

concerning Trial By Jury.

“The friends and adversaries of the plan of the Convention, if they agree on
nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon Trial By Jury; or if there are
any differences between them it consists in this: the former regard it as A
VALUABLE SAFEGAURD TO LIBERTY; the latter represent it as THE
PALLADIUM OF FREE GOVERNMENT. For my own part, the more the
operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have
discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous
to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a
Representative Republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to as a
defense against the oppression of an hereditary monarch, than as A Barrier To The
Tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government.

Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, AS ALL ARE
SATISFIED OF THE UTILITY OF THE INSTITUTION, AND ITS FRIENDLY
ASPECT TO LIBERTY. But I must acknowledge that I cannot readily discern
the inseparable connection between the existence of liberty and the Trial By Jury in
civil cases. Arbitrary impeachments, Arbitrary punishments upon Arbitrary
convictions have ever appeared to me to be the Engines Of Judicial Despotism;
and these have all relation to criminal cases, aided by the Habeas Corpus Act,
seems therefore to be alone concerned in the question. And Both Of These
Are Provided For in the most ample manner in the plan of the Convention.”
(Federalist Papers No. 83)

The founding Fathers, the Legislatures and the People, ratifying

the Constitution, having experienced the Mischief’s, and seeing the

evils, perpetrated upon them personally and their neighbors, and the

Colonies as a whole, set forth a Remedy, for themselves and their

posterity, to wit:

5
 Constitution of the United States of America, Article IV, Section 2:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of the

Citizens in the Several States.”

It is therefore properly held that:

“A clause in the Constitution must be given Full Force and Effect through out this

Union.”

(King vs. Mullins, 171 U.S. 404, 18 S.Ct. 925

The institution of Trial By Jury, was binding throughout the Union. This Mandate

was further noted by Alexander Hamilton, in the federalist Papers No. 83, to wit:

“The power to constitute courts is a power to prescribe the mode of trial; and

consequently, if nothing was said in the Constitution on the subject of juries, the

legislature would be at liberty either to adopt that institution or let it alone. This

discretion, in regard to criminal causes, is abridged by the express injunction of

Trail By Jury In All Criminal Cases in a particular mode excludes indeed. The

obligation or necessity of employing the same mode in civil cases, but Does Not

Abridge The Power of the legislature to exercise that mode if it should be thought

proper...”

Hamilton went on to say that:

6
 “From these observations this conclusion results: that the Trial By Jury in civil

cases Would Not Be Abolished; and that the use attempted to be made of the

maxims which have been quoted is contrary to Reason and Common Sense, and

therefore not admissible.”

This line of Reasoning was formed on the premise that:

“The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts

in the construction of the laws. The True Test, therefore, of a just application of

them is its Conformity To The Source from which they are derived. This being the

case, let me ask if it is consistent with Reason or Common Sense to suppose that A

Provision Obliging the legislative power to commit the Trial of Criminal Cases to

Juries is a Privation Of Its Right To Authorize or permit That Mode Of Trial In

Other Cases?” (Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 83)

Thomas Jefferson’s, knowledge and understanding of “Trail By Jury”,

and the Proper Function and Power of the People sitting therein,

including but not limited to, Trying Both The Law and The Facts, was

Based on “Ensuring Justice.”

“These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before

them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves; but if it be of fact, or

of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a

combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to

refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the

7
 subject Lies Within Their Discretion Only. And if the question relate to any point of

Public Liberty, or if it be one of those which The Judges may be suspected of Bias,

THE JURY UNDERAKE TO DECIDE BOTH THE LAW AND THE FACT. If

they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to

the State, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular

and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than

to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that

particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better

chance of just decision, than cross and pile.” (the Complete Jefferson, Padover, pg.

656)

The Constitutional Mandates were soberly discussed in the State

Legislatures, taking into account the past usurpation’s and corruption,

and fully intending to provide a Remedy for the same.

“The People themselves have it in their Power effectually to resist usurpation,

Without Being Driven To An Appeal In Arms. AN ACT OF USURPATION IS

NOT OBLIGATORY: IT IS NOT LAW: AND ANY MAN MAY BE JUSTIFIED

IN HIS RESISTANCE. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general

government: yet only his fellow Citizens can convict him.

They Are His Jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the power of

congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will Pronounce him, if the

supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.” (Johnathan Elliot Ed., “The

Debates In The Several State Conventions On the Adoption Of The Federal

Constitution” 2:93-94)

8
 The Mischief and Remedy were discussed with the same intent and due diligence.

“Iredell: “the greatest danger from ambition is in criminal cases. But here they

have no option. THE TRAIL MUST BE BY JURY, in the State where the offense

is committed; and the Writ of Habeas Corpus will in the meantime secure the

Citizen against Arbitrary imprisonment, which has been the principle source of

Tyranny In All Ages.”

(4:144-145, Debates In The Several State Conventions, supra)

And at Volume 4, Page 71, Supra,

“As to criminal cases, I must observe that the great instrument of Arbitrary Power

is criminal prosecutions. . . There is No Safe Mode to try these But By Jury.

If Any Man had means of trying another his own way, or Were It Left To

The Control Of Arbitrary Judges, NO MAN WOULD HAVE THAT SECURITY

FOR LIFE AND LIBERTY WHICH EVERY FREEMAN OUGHT TO HAVE.”

It was further noted that Usurpation by an Arbitrary Legislative

Enactment, would be met with an almost certain reaction by the

People, to wit:

Iredell: “Can we believe that Congress either Would Or Could take it away? . .

.Were They To Attempt It, Their Authority Would Be Instantly Resisted. They

would draw down on themselves the Resentment And Detestation of the People.

9
 They. . .Would Be Held In Eternal Infamy, And The Attempt Prove As

Unsuccessful As IT IS WICKED.”

(Vol. 4, pg. 148, Debates In The Several State Conventions, Supra)

Fully comprehending the possible need for improvements and

alterations, the Founders had common sense enough to set forth a

provision for the same in Article V, Section 1, and was expounded on

by James Madison, to wit:

“That useful alterations will be suggested by experience could not be foreseen. .

.The mode preferred by the convention. . .guards equally against that extreme
facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme
difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally
enables the general and State governments to originate the amendment Of Errors,
as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.”
(Federalist Papers, N. 43)

Therefore Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America were

proposed and ratified by the several States on December 15, 1791, (Annuls of Congress,

88, 913), setting forth the RIGHTS retained by “We The People”, and Proper Limitations

on All branches of Government, their Agencies, and the Agents thereof. This included

the provisional Mandate of “Due Process”, to wit:

Amendment V:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in
the land or navel forces, or the Militia, when in actual services in time of War or
public danger; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall
be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, NOR BE
DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.”

10
 The “Bill Of Rights”, further Mandated the provisions of “Trial By

Jury”, In ALL Criminal Cases, to wit:

Amendment VI:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to the 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 by
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

The provisional Mandate of “Trial By Jury”, was extended to Private Law suites

by authority of Amendment VII, to wit:

“In suites at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty

dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall

be re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the common

law.”

In view of the above-mentioned History and Constitutional Mandates,

it is properly held that:

“The basic purpose of a written Constitution has twofold aspect, first, the Securing
To The People of certain Rights and Remedies, and second, the Curtailment of
Unrestricted Governmental Activity within certain Defined Fields.”
(Du Pont vs. Du Pont, Sup. Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A. 2d 724)

The power of the Common Law Jury, was stated by Chief Justice, John Jay, in the first

Trial By Jury before the Supreme Court, in 1794. The Civil Case, was entitled Georgia

vs. Brailsford, 3 Dal. 1, 156 U.S. 51. In his instructions to the jury, the Chief Justice

outlined the Independent Authority and Power of the Jury.

11
 “It may not be amiss, here, gentleman, to remind you of the good old rule, that on
questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the
province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law,
which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless
a right to take upon yourselves To Judge Both, and to Determine The Law as well
as The Fact Controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we
have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court;
for, as on one hand, it is presumed that juries are the best judge of the facts; it is,
on the other hand, presumable that the courts are the best judges of the law. BUT
STILL, BOTH OBJECTS ARE LAWFULLY WITHIN YOUR POWER OF
DECISION.”

It is most obvious that the concept and practice of “Trial By Jury”

has been, and is, maintained as a Fundamental Right, pursuant to the

Constitutional Compact, to wit:

1849 – State vs. Croteau, 23 Vt. 14, 54 Am. Dec. 90.

“The Common Law Right of the Jury to Determine The Law As Well As The
Facts REMAINS UNIMPAIRED.”

The 1816, Constitution of the State of Indiana, was Amended in 1851, by the

people thereof, due to the inconsistent ruling by the Courts on Trial By Jury and the

Power of the Jury.

“In all criminal cases whatever the jury shall have the right to determine the Law
and the Facts; and this Right has since been maintained by the facts; and this Right
has since been maintained by the Court, even when the constitutionality of a
statute was involved.”
(Lynch vs. State, 9 Ind. 541 (1857); Sparf and Hansen vs. U.S., 156 U.S. 51)

“It seems that the court instructs the juries, in criminal cases, not to bind their
conscience, but to inform their judgements, but they Are Not Duty Bound to adopt
its opinion as their own.”
(Lynch vs. State (1857), Supra)

It was also held proper, that:

12
 “Where the Jury made the Judges of the Law, as well as the Facts, it is within the
discretion of the trial court to permit counsel to read judicial opinions, and legal
text books to the jury.”
(Wohlford vs. People, 45 Ill. App. (1892)

As early as 1896, it was settled that a statute is NOT to abrogate

the Common Law3 Jury Power and Duties.

“Now unanimity was one of the peculiar and essential features of Trial By Jury at
the Common Law. No authorities are needed to sustain this proposition.
Whatever may be true as to legislation which changes Any mere Details of the Jury
Trial, it is clear that A Statute Which Destroys This Substantial And Essential
Feature Thereof Is One Abridging The Right.”
(American Publishing Co. vs. Fisher (1896), 166 U.S. 464)

The true inherent nature of Trial By Jury has been “Jury Trial Is A Right.”

(Kansas vs. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907); U.S. vs Murdock, 209 U.S.389 (1933);
U.S. vs Tarlowski, 305 F Supp. 112 (1969))

The Jury has Undisputed Powers, as held in U.S. vs. Moylan, 417 F. 2d, 1002, 1006

(1969), to wit:

“WE recognize, as appellants urge, the Undisputed Power of the Jury to acquit,
even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to
evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general
verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of jurors to find
the basis on which they judge.If the jury feels that the law under which the
defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of
the accused, or any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has
power to acquit, and the court must abide by the decision.”

It is also Undisputed that:

“The Jury has the Power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both the Law and the
Facts.”
(Horning vs. DC, 254 U.S. 135)

13
 Other specifications were necessary to constitute a proper

Common Law Jury, which date as far into antiquity as early Norman

Tradition.

“The Trial By Jury of Twelve Men was the usual trial among the Normans
in most suits, especially in assize, et juris uturum.”
(1 Hale’s History Of Common Law, 218, 219)

The statements made in (Patton et al vs. United States, 281 U.S.

276) are worthy of note to wit:

IT IS NOT OPEN TO Question. Those elements were – (1) that the jury
should consist of twelve men, Neither More or Less; (2) that the trial should be
in the presence and under the superintendence of a judge having power to instruct
them as to the law and advise them in respect of the facts; and (3) that the verdict
should be unanimous.”

This was further upheld in Maxwell vs. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 586, which states as follows:

“That a Jury composed as at Common Law, of Twelve Jurors was intended by the
Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, there can be no doubt.”

An act, by any Branch of Government, to change the requisites or

remove any essential element, is Unconstitutional and Void. The

expanse of the Prohibition Extends to any Legislative Act and to mere

Territorial Jurisdiction.

“An act of Congress adopted a criminal code for Alaska providing that in trials for
misdemeanors six persons shall constitute a legal jury, is repugnant to the
Constitution and Void”
(Rassmussen vs. United States, 197 U.S. 56)

14
 The mandated “Trial By Jury” was extended to suits at Common Law, by the

provisions set forth in Amendment VII, of the Constitution of the United States of

America. To further understand this provision, it is necessary:

“To ascertain the scope and meaning of the seventh Amendment, preserving ‘Trial

By Jury’ in suits at Common Law where the value in controversy exceeds Twenty

Dollars, resort must be had to the appropriate rules of the Common Law

established at the time of the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment in 1791.”

(Dimick vs. Schiedt, 55 S. Ct. 296, 293 U.S. 474, 79 L. Ed. 603)

This provision of course is as stated, “IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW”

being different than suits In Equity. The division is noted in Root vs.

Lake Shore 7 S.R. Co., 105 U.S. 189, 26 L. Ed. 975, to wit:

“The distinction between Law and Equity Jurisdiction Is Constitutional to the

extent to which the Seventh Amendment FORBIDS ANY INFRINGMENT OF
TRIAL BY JURY, as fixed by the Common Law.”

The Common Law was defined by Sir William Blackstone, and how it is
determined.

“This unwritten, or Common Law is properly distinguishable into three kinds.

1. General Customs; which are the universal rule of the whole kingdom,
and form the Common Law, in its stricter and more usual signification. 2.
Particular Customs; which for the most part, effect only inhabitants of
particular districts.
3. Certain Particular Laws; which By Custom, are adopted and used by some
particular courts, of pretty general and extensive jurisdiction.
I. As to General Customs, or The Common Law, properly so called; this is
that law, by which proceedings and determinations in the King’s ordinary courts of
justice are guided and directed. This, for the most part, settles the course in
which lands descend by inheritance;
the manner and form of acquiring and transferring property; the solemnities and
obligation of contracts; the rules expounding wills, deeds, and acts of parliament;
the respective remedies of civil injuries; the several species of temporal offenses;

15
 with the manner and degree of punishment; and an infinite number of minuter
particulars, which diffuse themselves as extensively as the ordinary distribution of
common justice requires. Courts Of Record, Chancery, the King’s Bench, the
Common Pleas, and the Exchequer; - that the eldest son alone is heir to his
ancestory; - that property may be acquired and transferred by writing; - that wills
shall be construed mst favorably, and deeds more strictly; - that money lent upon
bond is recoverable by an action of Debt; - that breaking the public peace is an
offense, and is punishable by fine and imprisonment; - all these are doctrines that
are not set down in any written statute or ordinance, but depend merely upon
immemorial usage, that is, upon Common Law for their support.” (Blackstone’s
Commentaries, Section II, pg. 33, 34)

This is a reiteration of Kent’s Commentaries, i., p. 471, to wit:

“The Common-Law includes those Principles, Usages, and Security Of Person and
Property, which DO NOT rest for their authority upon any express and positive
declaration of the will of the legislature.”

These immemorial Concepts include, of course, such Socially

necessary concepts as: Thou Shalt Not Steal, which is sometimes

called Theft or Larceny, Thou Shalt Not Lie, which is sometimes called

perjury, Fraud, etc., Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness, which is

sometimes called Libel or Slander. The changing of names does not

supersede the reality of the concepts.

“The Constitution was Intended to PROHIBIT THINGS, Not Names, and its
provisions cannot be evaded by giving a new name to an old thing.”
(Craig vs. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410, S. Ct. Digest, L. Ed.)

The provisions specifically set forth in the Amendment VII, provides for the

sanctity of the decision of the Jury , as stated in Baltimore 7 Carolina Line vs. Redman, 55

S. Ct. 890, 295 U.S. 654, 79 L. Ed. 1636.

“Seventh Amendment to the Constitution preserves the Right of Jury Trial existing

under English Common Law when Amendment was adopted and protect it from

16
Indirect Impairment through possible enlargement of courts power of re-

examination under such law.”

It is here, therefore that the words of Sir William Blackstone are

reiterated, concerning “Trial By Jury.”

“Here therefore a conpetent number of sensible and upright jurymen, chosen from
among those of middle rank, will be the found best investigators of truth, and be
found the surest guardians of public justice. For the most powerful individuals in
the state will be cautious of committing any flagrant invasion of another’s right,
when he knows that the fact of his oppression must be examined and decided by
Twelve indifferent men, not appointed till the hour of Trial; and that, when once
the fact is ascertained, the law must of course redress it. This therefore preserves
in the hands of the people that share which they ought to have in the administration
of public justice, and prevents the encroachment of the powerful and wealthy
without the intervention of a jury (whether composed of Justice of the Peace,
Commissioners of the Revenue, Judges of a court of conscience, or Any Other
standing Magistrates), IS A STEP TOWARDS ESTABLISHING
ARISTOCRACY, THE MOST OPPRESIVE OF ABSOLUTE
GOVERNMENTS.”

“. . .It is, therefore, upon the whole, a Duty Every Man Owes His Country, His
Friends, His Posterity, and Himself, TO MAINTAIN TO THE UTMOST OF HIS
POWER THIS VALUABLE CONSTITUTION IN ALL ITS RIGHTS; To Restore
It To Its Ancient Dignity, If At All Impaired by different value of property, or
Otherwise Deviated From its first institution; to amend it, wherever it is defective;
and, ABOVE ALL, TO GUARD WITH THE MOST JEALOUS
CIRCUMSPECTION AGAINST THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW AND
ARBITRARY METHODS OF TRIAL, which, under a variety of possible
pretenses, may in time imperceptibly undermine this Best Preservation of English
Liberty.”

“Upon these accounts, the TRIAL BY JURY ever has been, and I trust ever will
be, looked upon as the glory of English law. And if it has so great an advantage
over other, in regulating Civil Property, how much must that advantage be
heightened, when it is applied in criminal cases. . .It is most transcendent privilege
which Any Subject Can Enjoy, or wish for, that he cannot be effected either in his
property, his liberty, or his person, But By The UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF
TWELVE OF HIS NEIGHBORS AND EQUALS.” A constitution that I may
venture to affirm has, under providence, secured the just liberties of this Nation for
a long succession of ages. And therefore a celebrated French writer, who
concluded, that because Rome, Sparta, and Carthage have lost their liberties,

17
 therefore those of England in time must perish, should have recollected that Rome,
Sparta and Carthage, at the time when their liberties were lost, were strangers to
the TRIAL BY JURY.” (Blackstone’s Commentaries, Supra)

“TRIAL BY JURY” is a “RIGHT”, ESTABLISHED IN ANTIQUITY, AND

SECURE AND GUARANTEED BY THE Constitution, and like other Rights, is
not subject to abrogation by any branch of Government, Agency or Officer,
Employee or Agent thereof.

“Where RIGHTS SECURED BY THE Constitution are involved, there can be no

rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” (Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436, 491)

Trial by Jury is hereby RIGHTFULLY DEMANDED.

18