DOCSLIB.ORG

Section VI the JUDICIARY 1. Judical Systems and Legal Procedures ^

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

WBS\l::f^-^^iy!^-<''':~^B Section VI '^ THE JUDICIARY 1. Judical Systems and Legal Procedures ^ -;.';vv-i.;i-- :..,^.- .51^3. Bii^lpPl t,.- . :> ^^ m WW^'-'"'-^--^'- •.U...J.UM ^ 1 .) Jtidicial Systems and Legal Procedures STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS* fe- V HE LEADING development In the judi- . meeting, but has not been abandoned by Tcial world during the past bierinium its-sponsors. The coniprehensive proposJals was the adoption of a new constitu- of the Judiciary Commission of Colorado tion by the voters of New Jersey in Novern- met a similar fate in the legislature, except** ber, 1947, and the reorgaiiizationvOf that for much-amended bills for judiciaVsalary state's judiciary under it, efFecti\j)^eptem- increases and pensions. Court reorganiza- ber 15, 1948. The riew^diciiP structure tion proposials of varying scope are under is as simple as the old one was complex. It consideration in Florida, Georgia, Ohio, consists of a seven-man Supreme Court, and Texas. superseding the former sixteen-man Court There have been no changes in methods of Errors and Appeals; a unified Superior of selecting judges, in spite of much effort Court, superseding the former Supreme to that end throughout the country. Defi- Court, Court of Chancery, Prerogative nite proposals for jiidicial selection reform Court, and Circuit Courts; and the County were being agitated for in Alabama, Ar- Court, superseding and succeeding to the kansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,' jurisdiction of the former Common Pleas, Indiana, iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Ne- Orphans, Oyer and Terminer, Quarter braska. New York, iennsylvania, Texas, Sessions, and Special Sessions Courts. The Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wy- Supenor Court has a Law Division of eley- oming. Measures for Missouri-type plans, en judkes, a Chancery Division of nine providing for "appointment of judges upon judges,^nd an Appellate Division consist- nomination of a commission subject to sub- ing of two parts of three judges each. The sequent periodic confirmation at the polls, County Court h^s Law and Probate Divi- were introduced in the legislatures of Golo- sions, and may grant both legal (civil and rado and New York, but failed to pass, criminal) and equitable relief. The office Similar plans had been drafted and were of justice of the peace was completely abbl- being pushed by judicial councils, bar as- ished effective December 31, 1948.; sociations, or bar committees in Alabama, . A plan for just about as thorough an Arkansas,* Florida, Indiana, Pennsylvania, overhauling of the state judicial prganiza- Texas, and Wisconsin. In the other states tion of Arkansas, on which a special com- mentioned, individuals and groups were, mission had been at work for three years, attempting to stir up interest in the subject, failed to win the approval of the Bar Asso- Judicial salary increases were proposed, ciation! of Arkansas at its 1949 annual in manmosty ostatesf them, an. dThe wery e wercarriee nod tthroug so nuh­ •Prepared by Glenn R. Winters, Secretary- Treasurer, American Judicature Society. For a merous as in the last biennium, indicating more detailed account of state judicial systems, see less pressure for them after the large num­ The BoQk of the States, 7948-49, ,pp, 495-^. ber then., granted, as well as somewhat 505 ^^FF. _ J T "i isa o 506 THE BOOK OF THE STATES greater resistarice at this tirhe in the legis­ tive mandate, or by the court alone under latures. The most conspicuous'single ad­ its inherent power to regulate the practice vance in this respect was in Kentucky, of law. North Dakota was the first, in where judges, along with all other state 1923, and California was the; first big officials, were limited by the state constitu­ state, in 1926. Florida became th©»twenty- tion to a maximum of S5,000 a year. The fifth on June 7, 1949, when its Supreme 1948 legislature granted expense allow­ Court handed down a decision granting ances of $150 a year to the judges and com- the petition of the state bar association for rnissioners of the Court of Appeals to reim­ integration by rule of court. That was the burse them for the expenditures they would first addition to the list since the VVest Vir­ have to make if they commuted from their ginia bar was integrated in 1945. Other homes to Frankfort for the court sessionSj states in which interest in bar integration and $100 a month to the circuit judges to is or recently has been manifest include cover a long list of miscellaneous expenses, i Arkansas (which already has a partial inte­ A special Court of Appeals, necessary be-.; gration for disciplinary purposes only), cause of the disqualification of all the regu- '• Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massa­ lar judges as interested parties, held the chusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jer­ legislation constitutional.. sey, and Wisconsin. Iowa, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia A generation ago a half-dozen states de­ brought to thirty-six the number of states parted from the overwhelming majority to providing retirement pensions for their provide for less than unanimous jury veir- judges; Colorado broadened its pension pro­ dicts in certain cases; Their number .has visions to include more judges. Definite grown with the years until today they are eflforts to-that end failed in Indiana, Mich­ far in the majority. Most of t|iese provi­ igan; South Dakota, and, Wisconsin. Fur­ sions apply only to civil cases, on the theory ther efforts will be made in these states and . that a conviction by a less than unanimous also in Missouri, Ohio, and Virginia. verdict is not conviction beyond a reason­ No new judicial councils were established able doubt, as required by the criminal in the biennium, but the inactive councils law; but five of the states—Idaho, Louisi­ of Idaho and Virginia were revitalized. A ana, Montana, Oklahoma, and Oregon— bill for a judicial council was introduced iii have succeeded in applying them to minor the Colorado legislature, but did ftot pass. criminarcases as well. Latest addition to For the first time, state bar integration the list is New Jersey, which passed a stat­ data and references are here presented. An ute in June, 1948, providing for five-sixths integrated bar is a state-widb organization verdicts in civil cases. A list of the states, of vail the lawyers of a state, established by with tabular details of their varying provi­ act of the legislature, by rule of the state's sions, and statutory references, concludes highest court in compliance with a legisla­ the data here presented for the biennium. ^ { \ \ :- f m^mwmm^m^mm wmmtm • THE JUDICIARr 507 CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS AND TERMS OF JUDGES* Matis- Su- 'Court Chan­ Cir­ Dis­ Su­ Pro­ trate Munici- Jus- preme of cery cuit trict perior bate County or Police pal ticis Other Slate Court Appeals Court Court Court Court Court . Court Court Court. Court Courts Alabama...;.... 6 6 6 . Arlxona.. 6 4 4 • Arkansas 8 4* "2' 2 •"id California 12 '6* 1 .4-2 (0 Colorado.-. ;-rr;:r.--10 («) 2 (••) -Connecticut;-.-.. 8- 8 2 2 4' Ddaware 12 121 12 12k 41 . Florida 6 •(•)• 4 4"* 6 6 4-1 4 Idaho..... .. 6 2 2 Illinois.. 9 6 6 4 •(•)' 4 6 .4 6 4 .4 4 Iowa...;....... 6 4 4 2 6 « 4 2 2P 2 2 Kentucky...,. "8^ 4 4 12 .... .... er '4h6 4 (•) Maine 7 .... .... .... .7 4 4 (') Maryland....... IS" 15^ ...-" 15 4» 2- 2 Massachusetts.. Life ..., : .... .... Life life Life - Life 7 Michigan....... .8 .... 6 4 4 4 MinnMota 6 . .... 6 4 2 Mississippi...... 8 4 4 ..., (0) 4 Missouri 12 12 .... 6 4 Montana....... 6 .... .... .... 4 Nebraska 6 .... ..... 4 . (') • 4. Nerada 6 ;... .' 4 (^) 2 New Hampshire. (•) (.). (•) 5 New jersey..... 7« 7",»'> 7 (i) : 5 New Mexico..... 8 .... .... 6 2 2 New York. 14« lit .... .... '6«i 14.6" M 4 9»i North Carolina.. 8 ..." .... ; $') 4 2 6-4 North Dakota... 10 •••• 6 • («) 2 2 Ohio............ 6 6 .... 6ib .... 4 4-6 4 Oklahoma 6 6*> .... .... 4 4 2 2 Or^on 6 .... 6 {•> 4 2 Pennsylvania.... 21 .... .... -10»'' id' (•") 10 • 5 Rhode Island.".. Life .... .... 3 Life (•') 5 , South Carolina.. 10 .......: 4 •4 • . 2 South Dakota... 6 4 .... (») •2 •' 2 Tennessee 8 8 8 , 8 6 Texas..... 6 6 .... ..... 4 2 Utah. 10 ..;. -6 4 4. Vermont .... 2 .... .... .... 2 .12 2 2 Virginia... l>-»^ .... 8 8BO 6«p Washington..... 6 ;.. .... 4 4-2 West Virginia... 12 8 (») 4 Wisconsin. 10 6 («) 2 Wyoming ... 8 .... ..7^. 6 (y) 2 .•In certain counties. The probate judge is judge and cleric of ' y Probate jurisdiction exercised by district courts. the county court. • To age 70. 'i Recorder's courts—municipal jurisdiction in certain towns. *» First term—life tenure on reappointment, retirement at 70. ' Probate jurisdiction exercised by chancery courts. »>> Appellate Division of Superior Court. ^ Common pleas courts in certain counties. »« There is ah Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, serving . " Probate jurisdiction exercised by superior courts. ' as an intermediate appellate court. Itsjudges are appointed ' Juvenile courts. from among the judges of theSupreme Court by the governor ( Probate jurisdiction exercised by county courts. for five-year terms, except the presiding justices who remain .h Small claims courts in citie's over 100,000. for the duration of their term m the Supreme Court. f Common pleas. " Surrogates' Courts. Where no separate surrogate is elected, ' Chancellor. Vice-chancellor serves during pleasure of chan­ county judge is surtogate. cellor. *• Fourteen years in Brdhz. Kings, Queens, and Richmond k Court of Common Pleas, New Castle County. Coimties, elsewhere 6 years. ' Court of Common Pleas, Kent County. »' -Court of Special Sessions. " Civil and Criminal Courts of Record. : , ' »« Court of Claims. " Known as Court of Ordinary.
Recommended publications
  • The Salem Witch Trials from a Legal Perspective: the Importance of Spectral Evidence Reconsidered

    The Salem Witch Trials from a Legal Perspective: the Importance of Spectral Evidence Reconsidered

    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1984 The Salem Witch Trials from a Legal Perspective: The Importance of Spectral Evidence Reconsidered Susan Kay Ocksreider College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Law Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Ocksreider, Susan Kay, "The Salem Witch Trials from a Legal Perspective: The Importance of Spectral Evidence Reconsidered" (1984). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625278. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-7p31-h828 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE; THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECTRAL EVIDENCE RECONSIDERED A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History The College of Williams and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Susan K. Ocksreider 1984 ProQuest Number: 10626505 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10626505 Published by ProQuest LLC (2017).
  • Peace 'Bonds Zand Criminal Justice in Colonial 'Philadelphia

    Peace 'Bonds Zand Criminal Justice in Colonial 'Philadelphia

    Peace 'Bonds zAnd Criminal Justice In Colonial 'Philadelphia HE Founders of Pennsylvania had no love for English courts or English criminal justice.* During the period when they Thad been oppressed on religious grounds, the Quakers had been persecuted especially vengefully in the courts; intolerant English judges delighted in calling them before the Bench on any pretext, and then, when the Quakers refused to remove their hats, punishing them for contempt of court.1 When they established the government in their own province, the Quakers wanted to avoid creating their own oppressive judicial institutions. "Fear of judicial oppression . had a marked influence on the development of our courts ... and was the primary cause of that jealousy of the judiciary which was long a feature of local politics."2 This distrust of the judiciary took institutional form in a variety of measures designed to reduce the scope of the law and the role of courts, judges, and lawyers in the life of die colony. Most adjudicatory functions were entrusted to the laymen who staffed the provincial or local councils, and court procedures were designed to be simple enough to make lawyers unnecessary.3 Lawyers were discouraged from establishing practices.4 A system of arbitration—hopefully to take the place of * The research on which this essay is based was supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The author wishes to thank Jeffrey D. Adelman, John Daly, and Marc J. Hershman. 1 Samuel M. Janney, Life of William Penn (Philadelphia, 1852), 27. 2 William H. Loyd, The Early Courts of Pennsylvania (Boston, 1910), 42.
  • 268KB***The Law on Treasonable Offences in Singapore

    268KB***The Law on Treasonable Offences in Singapore

    Published on e-First 14 April 2021 THE LAW ON TREASONABLE OFFENCES IN SINGAPORE This article aims to provide an extensive and detailed analysis of the law on treasonable offences in Singapore. It traces the historical development of the treason law in Singapore from the colonial period under British rule up until the present day, before proceeding to lay down the applicable legal principles that ought to govern these treasonable offences, drawing on authorities in the UK, India as well as other Commonwealth jurisdictions. With a more long-term view towards the reform and consolidation of the treason law in mind, this article also proposes several tentative suggestions for reform, complete with a draft bill devised by the author setting out these proposed changes. Benjamin LOW1 LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore). “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”2 I. Introduction 1 The law on treasonable offences, more commonly referred to as treason,3 in Singapore remains shrouded in a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity despite having existed as part of the legal fabric of Singapore since its early days as a British colony. A student who picks up any major textbook on Singapore criminal law will find copious references to various other kinds of substantive offences, general principles of criminal liability as well as discussion of law reform even, but very little mention is made of the relevant law on treason.4 Academic commentary on this 1 The author is grateful to Julia Emma D’Cruz, the staff of the C J Koh Law Library, the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library and the ISEAS Library for their able assistance in the author’s research for this article.
  • The Role of Amateur and Professional Judges in the Royal Courts of Late Medieval England

    The Role of Amateur and Professional Judges in the Royal Courts of Late Medieval England

    Amateur and professional judges 2 The role of amateur and professional judges in the royal courts of late medieval England Anthony Musson The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries witnessed a rapid expansion in the scope of royal justice in England. The growing demand for legal remedies and the need to enforce public order led to an expansion in the activities of the Westminster courts and in the increasing provision of judicial commissions (some ad hoc, others on a more regular basis) in the shires.1 The expansion was inevitably accompanied by the need for a body of men willing and able to assist in interpreting the law and managing the complexities of litigation both in the central courts and in the sessions held in the provinces. A detailed examination of the personnel involved in royal justice would not be appropri- ate here, but this chapter will endeavour to provide an overview of the dy- namics of the administration of justice in late medieval England and an insight into the judiciary at work. The perception that justices engaged under royal commissions were either ‘amateurs’ or ‘professionals’ has to some extent reflected a conceptual divi- sion between ‘local’ and ‘central’ justice frequently invoked in the context of the emergence of the local magistracy and the staffing of other royal tribunals in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Put at its starkest, those acting in the central courts have tended to be regarded as ‘professionals’, while the justices of the peace have traditionally been seen as constituting the amateur wing of the judiciary. In many ways the distinction has arisen as a result of the directions taken in historical research.
  • L~R I~~~ L~Ijll~Lllltllitlllllfjfj~11111111 11 3 3009 00355 9285

    L~R I~~~ L~Ijll~Lllltllitlllllfjfj~11111111 11 3 3009 00355 9285

    NEW JERSEY STATE LIBRARY · L KFN 2231 C44 1903 ~hlll ~ijUI~I~ l~r I~~~ l~ijll~lllltllitlllllfjfj~11111111 11 3 3009 00355 9285 Date Due NJ KFN 2231 C44 1903 c.2 Clevengep, William May, 1872, It'r The coupts of New JerseY New Jersey State Library Department of Education Trenton, New Jersey 08625 PRINTEO ,'" u.s.... CAT. NO. 24 161 ~ 0D1- ;}- r 0/ HE COURTS OF NEW JERSEY '­ Their Origin! Composition and Jurisdiction N..J KF By WILLIAM M. CLEVENGER (:1 eVE I" OF THE ATLANTIC COUNTY BAR It The ALSO Some Account of their Origin and Jurisdiction By EDWARD Q. KEASBEY OF THE ESSEX COUNTY BAR NJ KFN 2231 C44 Crij~ 2. 1903 PLAINFIELD, NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL PUBLISHING COMPANY 1903 PREFACES. The need of a concise and systematic account of the origin, composition and jurisdiction of the several courts of the State of New Jersey prompted the compiler in 1895 to print in the New Jersey Law Journal a series 1(. of articles based upon notes made while he was a clerk in a lawyer's office. The suggestion made in 1902 by the Board of Examiners for admission to the Bar that stu­ dents should refer to these articles is the excuse for the present publication in book form. Some changes have been made in the text by reason of the fact that the County court act has been declared unconstitutional. W.M.C. Atlantic City, N. J., May, 1903. COPYRIGHT, 1903, By The New Je'.ey Law)ou,nal Publi,l,ing Company.
  • Courts of Pennsylvania in the Eighteenth Century Prior to the Revolution

    Courts of Pennsylvania in the Eighteenth Century Prior to the Revolution

    THE COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. In 1701 William Penn was called back to England to defend his proprietorship. Before his departure a general revision of the earlier legislation was undertaken at the sessions of the assembly held at New Castle in 1700 a td at Philadelphia in 1701. The acts there passed, one lhun- dred and fourteen in number, seem, in a sense, to have -been regarded as, supplying the previous legislation and were passed with the expectation of being presented to the privy council for approval, as required by the charter. In fact, when the board of trade inquired of Penn, on his return, as to whether the laws received from him were a complete body of all the laws of the province, he replied that he believed they were the present body of laws, and it will be noticed that the digests of the eighteenth century begin their compilations with the.Acts of 17oo.1 Among these acts was one of October 28, 1701, entitled "An Act for Establishing Courts of Judicature in this Prov- ince and Counties Annexed." 2 Its origin was as follows: Edward Shippen, for the two previous years chief justice of the provincial court, and John Guest, the then chief justice, both members of the council, brought into the assembly on October 7th, a bill for establishing the courts, which was "unanimously rejected." Some few days after, David Lloyd, who was not then a member of either council 6r house, proposed a bill which was voted to be adopted with amendments, and Richard Hallowell and Isaac Norris were appointed a committee to draw up the bill, with the amendments.
  • The Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court

    Looking Back on a Glorious Past 1691-1991" Editors' Notes to Our Readers Judith S. Kaye Maryann Saccomondo Freedman This May Journal, marking the New York State Supreme Court s entry upon its fourth century, both celebrates that court s glorious past and looks to an equivalent future. History buffs as well as crystal-ball gazers should find their appetites well satisfied by this special Tricentennial issue. Looking Back on a Glorious Past The issue begins by looking back to May 6, 1691, when the New York Assembly passed a law establishing a "Supreme Court of Judicature," to be "Duely & Constantly Kept" at specified times. It is safe to pronounce after 300 years that the Assembly s mandate has been faithfully discharged. Through three centuries of evolution, Albert Rosenblatt revolution and reconstitution, the Supreme David Boehm Court endures as a premier bench serving, and advancing, justice throughout the State. The two articles introducing this Tricentennial issue span the three centuries. The first article, by Appellate Division Justice Albert Rosenblatt, breathtaking in its scope and efficiency, explores the firm foundations of the Supreme Court. A delightful wit, love of subject matter and deft hand in presenting it, are evident as well in Supreme Court Justice David Boehm s complementary tales of the courts, judges and lawyers of the Western frontier of New York State. Focusing on a single facet of Supreme Court history, Judge Phylis Bamberger traces the jury through 300 years, amply establishing her thesis that the jury both democratizes the legal process and reinvigorates allegiance to the fundamentals of democracy.
  • Seedtime of an American Judiciary: from Independence to the Constitution

    Seedtime of an American Judiciary: from Independence to the Constitution

    William & Mary Law Review Volume 17 (1975-1976) Issue 3 Bicentennial Symposium: Constitutional Article 5 Government - Strengths, Weaknesses, Future March 1976 Seedtime of an American Judiciary: From Independence to the Constitution William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the President/Executive Department Commons Repository Citation William F. Swindler, Seedtime of an American Judiciary: From Independence to the Constitution, 17 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 503 (1976), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol17/iss3/5 Copyright c 1976 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr SEEDTIME OF AN AMERICAN JUDICIARY: FROM INDEPENDENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION WmLAm F. SWInDLER* THE CLOSiNG OF THE ROYAL COu-RTS In the increasing disputes between the colonies and the mother coun- try preceding the war for independence, the nature of law and of the courts in British North America periodically came into question. Colonial leaders pointed retrospectively to the assumption, embodied in the earliest colonial charters, that the common law, modified to apply to the local needs of each settlement or "plantation," was the root stock of American jurisprudence.1 Once the issue of the authority of the common law in the colonies was belatedly raised, English authorities countered with the declaration that neither the common law nor the English Constitu- tion followed the flag except as England decreed.2 Essentiallv, this was the impasse on which the hope of avoiding revolution ultimately perished. Although their authority to do so might be called into question, the colonies proceeded to adopt or adapt the common law, setting up sys- tems of courts resembling the judicial structure remembered from Eng- * John Marshall Professor of Law, College of William and Mary.
  • Judicial System of Ontario William Renwick Riddell

    Judicial System of Ontario William Renwick Riddell

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1919 Judicial System of Ontario William Renwick Riddell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Riddell, William Renwick, "Judicial System of Ontario" (1919). Minnesota Law Review. 2505. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/2505 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW VOL. III JANUARY, 1919 No. 2 THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF ONTARIO WHEN, in 1791, the Province of Upper Canada began its sep- arate existence, it consisted in fact of considerably more territory than the present Province of Ontario. The Royal Proclamation of October, 1763,1 had created a "Government" of Quebec, the western boundary of which was a line drawn from the southern end of Lake Nipissing to the point at which the present inter- national boundary crosses the St. Lawrence. But the Quebec Act of 17742 much enlarged the Province of Quebec; the south- ern boundary was extended along the St. Lawrence, Lake On- tario, the Niagara River, the south shore of Lake Erie to the west- ern limit of Pennsylvania, then south along the western limit to the Ohio River and down the Ohio to its junction with the Mississippi, then "northward" to the Hudson's Bay Company's Territory. (The word "northward" was long afterwards authori- tatively interpreted as meaning "up the Mississippi.") 3 1 This Proclamation may be read in Shortt & Doughty's Constitutional Documents 1759-1792, published by the Dominion Archives or in the Re- port for 1906 of the Ontario Archives.
  • Revolutionary American Jury: a Case Study of the 1778-1779 Philadelphia Treason Trials, The

    Revolutionary American Jury: a Case Study of the 1778-1779 Philadelphia Treason Trials, The

    SMU Law Review Volume 61 Issue 4 Article 4 2008 Revolutionary American Jury: A Case Study of the 1778-1779 Philadelphia Treason Trials, The Carlton F. W. Larson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Carlton F. W. Larson, Revolutionary American Jury: A Case Study of the 1778-1779 Philadelphia Treason Trials, The, 61 SMU L. REV. 1441 (2008) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol61/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE REVOLUTIONARY AMERICAN JURY: A CASE STUDY OF THE 1778-1779 PHILADELPHIA TREASON TRIALS Carlton F.W. Larson* ABSTRACT Between September 1778 and April 1779, twenty-three men were tried in Philadelphiafor high treason against the state of Pennsylvania. These tri- als were aggressively prosecuted by the state in an atmosphere of wide- spread popular hostility to opponents of the American Revolution. Philadelphiajuries, however, convicted only four of these men, a low con- viction rate even in an age of widespread jury lenity; moreover, in three of these four cases, the juries petitioned Pennsylvania'sexecutive authority for clemency. Since it is unlikely that most of the defendants were factually innocent, these low conviction rates must be explained by other factors. This Article offers such an explanation, and, in the process, uses these trials as a case study of jury service in late eighteenth-century America.
  • Pennsylvania Magazine of HISTORY and BIOGRAPHY

    Pennsylvania Magazine of HISTORY and BIOGRAPHY

    THE Pennsylvania Magazine OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY Controlling the Opposition in Pennsylvania During the American Revolution HE legislative record for the state of Pennsylvania during the American Revolution presents a picture of harsh people T unyielding in their determination to stamp out all opposi- tion. Not only were severe punishments mandated for behavior considered dangerous to the American cause, but, during periods of threatened or actual British invasion of the state, small groups of men were given extensive discretionary power to defend Pennsyl- vanians from internal as well as external enemies. Had these groups wished to eliminate personal or political opponents, either by execu- tion or banishment, they had the power to do so. In practice, however, this did not happen. Instead, harsh measures were par- tially invalidated by juries refusing to indict or convict, by the Supreme Executive Council exercising its power of pardon after conviction, or even by the legislature passing special acts exempting certain individuals from the full force of a particular law. This is not to say that all defendants received fair treatment before the law or that some did not suffer unjustly. Although the "declaration of the rights of the inhabitants" in the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 promised accused persons rights long recognized 3 4 ANNE M. OUSTERHOUT January under English and provincial law, often many so-called disaffected1 persons were deprived of these rights during the Revolution. At first, after the Declaration of Independence, unsettled condi- tions in Pennsylvania made it difficult for opponents of separation to secure fair treatment by law. A convention in the summer of 1776 drew up a state constitution which was so controversial that it divided Pennsylvania society for many years.
  • PDF Generated by "Newgen R@Jesh"

    PDF Generated by "Newgen R@Jesh"

    OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 19 2019, NEWGEN i The Trials of Allegiance 9780190932749_Book.indb 1 /17_revised_proof/revises_ii/files_to_typesetting/validation 19-Jul-19 10:06:22 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 19 2019, NEWGEN iii The Trials of Allegiance Treason, Juries, and the American Revolution z CARLTON F.W. LARSON 1 9780190932749_Book.indb 3 /17_revised_proof/revises_ii/files_to_typesetting/validation 19-Jul-19 10:06:22 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 19 2019, NEWGEN 1 Introduction When dawn broke on the morning of October 4, 1779, in the fifth year of the American War for Independence, James Wilson of Philadelphia was not expecting to face combat. If he had stood on ceremony, he could have called himself Colonel Wilson (he was formally a colonel in the Cumberland County militia), but his countrymen would probably have rolled their eyes. A scholarly, bespectacled lawyer with no obvious martial abilities, Wilson had yet to draw his sword in battle (Figure I.1). But he had contributed notably to the cause of American independence with an even more powerful weapon— his pen. After emigrating from his native Scotland in his twenties, Wilson had become a leader of the Pennsylvania bar and the author of an influential pamphlet advocating the cause of the American colonies.1 Elected as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress, Wilson had proudly signed the Declaration of Independence at the Pennsylvania State House, the building that future generations would enshrine as Independence Hall. Wilson’s conduct had thus made him one of the most prominent American traitors to Great Britain and a rich prize for any British military unit that man- aged to capture him.