Get the Facts about Citizen Juries
“The juries are our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it.”
–Thomas Jefferson
“It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to
his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct
opposition to the directions of the court.”
-John Adams
“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.”
–Thomas Jefferson
“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
-John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
“Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.”
– Alexander Hamilton
The right to trial by jury has ancient roots. The tradition of citizen juries in the United States began with the Magna Carta, and was provided for in the body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights. Read the following excerpts from those documents to trace the protections for the right to trial by jury.
- How do these protections show change over time?
- What ideas about juries are expressed or implied in all of the documents?
- If people in the United States have a right to trial by jury, do they also have a
responsibility to serve on a jury?
Magna Carta (1215)
[29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or
Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will
we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law
of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice
or Right.
The U.S. Constitution—Article 3, Section 2 (1789)
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The Bill of Rights—Fifth Amendment (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on
a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offence 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.
The Bill of Rights—Sixth Amendment (1791)
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 . . .
The Bill of Rights—Seventh Amendment (1791)
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the
right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . .
Jurors often don’t know about one of their most powerful rights. If a jury believes a law
to be unjust, they can refuse to convict someone who has broken it. This is called jury nullification. The jury is said to have nullified the law. In the last forty years, juries have refused to convict pacifists who avoided the draft during the Vietnam War; marijuana-users accused of nonviolent offenses; and people who have assisted with euthanasia (physician-
assisted suicide.) Men and women on juries have the power to send strong messages to lawmakers with verdicts such as these. When they nullify, they are telling the government that they believe that certain laws are not just.
Nullification itself is controversial. Supporters argue that it is simply one way in which a jury might fulfill its duty. But critics assert that justice requires strict enforcement of the laws. They point to cases like those in the American south where white jurors refused to convict Ku Klux Klan members for murdering African Americans. These were not cases of jurors refusing to apply an unjust law, but rather of racist jurors sympathizing with racist defendants. Even in cases of truly unjust laws, they argue, the way to bring justice is to change the laws, not to ignore the existing ones. Jury nullification remains a controversial issue.