Court Procedure Quotes
This is a very important and fundamental quotation. Jefferson, John Adams, John Jay and many other Founding Fathers told us that the jury of peers was the final arbiter of a court case. However, many modern judges and legislatures have tried to erode that principle. In most states judges instructs juries that they are the final arbiter of the facts but he/she is the final arbiter of the law and how it should be applied in the case. But the founders wanted the jury to be the final arbiters of the law as well as the facts as is illustrated here and in {640587} and {640589}. For a more modern concurring view, see {640590}.
William the Conqueror. In Wager of Battle—often called “trial by combat”, a guilty person could challenge his accuser to combat. If the accuser won, the person must have been guilty; if the accused person won, he must have been falsely accused. It was assumed that this method gave God a clear opportunity to do justice. As silly as this appears to us today, at the time, most people believed that God was indeed looking at every event and would intercede to be sure that justice would prevail. In reality, it allowed the stronger men with good weapons skills to literally get away with murder or anything else. A similar logic operated with the Ordeal of Iron and other so called “ordeals”. In the ordeal by iron, the accused was required to lift a red hot iron rod. He would of course be burned. If the burn healed, God was showing that he was innocent. But if the burn festered and got infected, God was showing that he was guilty. If he didn’t die of gangrene or other infection, he could then be executed or otherwise punished. In England the Ordeal by Iron commanded by King William was abolished in 1215. Some scholars argued that there was a method to the madness of trial by ordeal. If most people were so religious or superstitious that they believed that God would be sure that the right outcome would prevail. A false accuser would recant rather than expose himself to almost certain death in combat with an innocent person who God would surely protect. Of course the pious people would be at a great disadvantage to the non-believers who would not be intimidated. Trial by combat lasted much longer and evolved into dueling which was quite prevalent in America until later in the 19th century.
Americans are divided as to whether this should be encouraged and helped or not.
Rehnquist was a bit of an egomaniac. He was more pompous than other chief justices and was distressed that lawyers in oral arguments would address him as “Mr. Justice,” like the other justices, which he felt did not give sufficient deference to his position. He also designed a set of judicial robes for himself which instead of being all black as was traditional and worn by the other justices, had 4 gold stripes on each arm sleeve. See the photograph of the Chief Justice.
This is one of the earliest American articulation of the 12 man jury.
This is a principle that most American jurists would applaud, with the exception of the very far right that does not even want foreign law consulted by the courts even for “useful knowledge” that they might contain. This is the most formalized and sophisticated compendium of laws of the so-called “barbaric peoples” of Europe. The compilation was in many ways a documentation of the traditional laws of the Visgoths that had evolved over hundreds of years.
