Judge or Jury, That Is The Question

The term "jury trial" is a subtle change in the language of the court room, which hides a significant change of power by the judge that he does not have. In a jury trial, the Judge is more than just in control of the proceedings - the judge's rules control what the jury can and can't do. You've heard judges instruct the jury to "ignore this or that..." This would not happen in a trial by jury. In a trial by jury, the jurors can interpret the law (as written or as applied) in whatever way is right. It is the brilliance of our system, in that a jury can do what is right and determine the law is wrong, if that is called for. This presents a huge distinction, and not just a play on words, between "jury trial" and "trial by jury."

The sixth Amendment to the US Constitution says:

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 where in 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.

There are two things to notice in the 6^th Amendment: 1) it uses the word "by" and, 2) it does not use the term "peer," when it speaks of jury. The right of a trial by jury is articulated clearly. However, there is almost complete ignorance on the distinction we are making; so let's cut through the smoke and try to see this with the clarity the Amendment offers.

You've heard a lot in the press lately about judicial activism; where judges make laws instead of interpreting laws. This is a real problem, and is at the core of what we are writing about. When a judge imposes rules on jurors that he does not have the legal basis to do, that judge has emasculated the jury and has robbed the defendant of his 6^th Amendment right. This is what we see happening in another case we are chronicling at http://www.uncleraisin.com/UR/iowacity/iocty01.asp. We hope to bring an education that helps solve this problem.

Just to be clear, we are saying that in a trial by jury, it is the jury that has the power to convict or acquit, not the judge. A jury may see a law that is unjust and decide contrary to its (otherwise) dictate, in spite of what the judge might say. A jury may ignore and refuse an unlawful order by the judge. In a trial by jury, it is up to the 12 jurors to speak (unanimously) to the particulars of the case, in coming to a final determination of guilt or innocence.

This power is an awesome power; in that it requires an understanding of the law and how the law comes into being. It is on this point that we Americans fall woefully short. The civics lessons we receive in our public schooling is almost non-existent; and most private schooling is not much better. In a world that removes the power from the people, why should we care? If the judge holds the power, and all that is required is to follow instructions, there is no reason to care. However, that is not what our Supreme Law of the land says.

We must take our responsibility seriously that is provided for in our US Constitution's 6^th Amendment. Without doing so, we will continue to fall prey to the whims of the court and the power they have taken illicitly. They have what is yours and mine. It is wrong to just let them have it!

As for Renato Hughes Jr., and his plight; the judge will probably arrest control and find room for the charges of racism, and rule that no jury of his peers can be found. If the judge does not expressly refer to, he will be imply, Renato Hughes Jr. is entitled to it per the 6^th Amendment. The sad part about this is, it will probably work on a populous who doesn't know any better. We shall see.