| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
Trials | |
<
< | Now with some background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical judges could be in those trials of Quakers, our central question should make more sense: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, I think it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put three more trials of other Quakers in comparison. | >
> | Now with some background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical judges could be in those trials of Quakers, the central question should make more sense: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put three more trials of other Quakers in comparison. | | |
Penn's Trial | |
<
< | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracechurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which then escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all basically testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracechurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; he actually admitted with pride that he assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make his acts unlawful; he then demanded the Court to produce the law on which the indictment against him was based: | >
> | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracechurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which then escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracechurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; he actually admitted with pride that he assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make his acts unlawful; he then demanded the Court to produce the law on which the indictment against him was based: | | | Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I Guilty of the indictment that is laid to my charge; and to the end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct understanding of this procedure, I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment. | | |
More Trials of Quakers | |
<
< | The first trial I want to cite here in comparison is the one taken place right after Penn's trial. This trial will serve as a great comparison because it was almost exactly the same as Penn's but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. In the beginning, the Recorder performed the same ridiculous hat show again, forcing the prisoners to put on their hats and fined them for 20 Marks. Because the first jury panel was imprisoned, a new panel was summoned by the Sheriff. "The Recorder, perusing the panel of the last summoned jury, gave directions to the clerk to call them over, who, it was observed, picked here and there such persons who were most likely to answer the design of the bench, not calling the panel in direct course or order as usual." All the prisoners kept asking by what law can the court pick a different jury, and Recorder, failing to produce a legal answer, in the end "in a great rage told one of the prisoners, that he should be gagged, and deserved to have his tongue bor'd through with a red-bot iron, telling them it should suffice that the Court was of opinion against them, and did overrule them." | >
> | The first trial to compare is the one taken place right after Penn's. This trial will serve as a great comparison because it was almost exactly the same as Penn's but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. In the beginning, the Recorder performed the same ridiculous hat show again, forcing the prisoners to put on their hats and fined them for 20 Marks. Because the first jury panel was imprisoned, a new panel was summoned by the Sheriff. "The Recorder, perusing the panel of the last summoned jury, gave directions to the clerk to call them over, who, it was observed, picked here and there such persons who were most likely to answer the design of the bench, not calling the panel in direct course or order as usual." All the prisoners kept asking by what law can the court pick a different jury, and Recorder, failing to produce a legal answer, in the end "in a great rage told one of the prisoners, that he should be gagged, and deserved to have his tongue bor'd through with a red-bot iron, telling them it should suffice that the Court was of opinion against them, and did overrule them." | | | The Court then proceeded. The Jury was sworn, the indictment was read, and some witnesses produced evidence that they saw prisoners among the assembly of people in Grace-church street. The prisoners required the Recorder to produce to the jury upon what law they were indicted; the Recorder answered: "that he was not bound to produce the law, for it was lex non scripta." Prisoners further argued that they had always been peaceful, and the law against riots was never made against them but to those who disturb the peace. The Recorder answered that the prisoners were worse than those rioters, that they were "stubborn and dangerous people". The Court disregarded the prisoners' further arguments and threw them to the dock. In the prisoners' absence, the Recorder gave the charge to the jury, telling the jury that "they [prisoners] were a refractory people, delighting in deeds of darkness, and they must be suppressed, and that upon the indictment they must bring them in guilty". The jury, as Besse describes, did give the guilty verdict as it was prepared for such purpose.
| |
<
< | The second trial I want to share was in the Assizes of Hartford in 1664. The prisoners were indicted for the same offense upon the Conventicle Act. Witnesses deposed that they found the prisoners assembled at a certain place and time, but added that they did not see or hear any of the prisoners speak (silent meetings were normal for Quakers). Facing such evidence, the Grand jury, "after a long debate, returned the Bill ignoramus(meaning "We ignore it", effectively discharge the prisoners because of insufficient evidence). The Judge Orlando Bridgeman was angry about this conclusion and said:"My masters, what do you mean? Will you make a nose of wax of the law? Will you suffer the law to be baffled? Those that think to deceive the law, the law will deceive them." The jury was thus sent out again with this new instruction, and a guilty verdict was reached. | >
> | The second trial was in the Assizes of Hartford in 1664. The prisoners were indicted for the same offense upon the Conventicle Act. Witnesses deposed that they found the prisoners assembled at a certain place and time, but added that they did not see or hear any of the prisoners speak (silent meetings were normal for Quakers). Facing such evidence, the Grand jury, "after a long debate, returned the Bill ignoramus(meaning "We ignore it", effectively discharge the prisoners because of insufficient evidence). Judge Orlando Bridgeman was angry about this conclusion and said: "My masters, what do you mean? Will you make a nose of wax of the law? Will you suffer the law to be baffled? Those that think to deceive the law, the law will deceive them." The jury was thus sent out again with this new instruction, and a guilty verdict was reached. | | | | |
<
< | The record of this trial was short (which is very typical of most records of Quakers trials), but I picked it because it represents how a trial of Quakers looked like for most of the time: some evidence of the prisoners met at certain time and place was presented, and the jury was asked to give verdict based on such facts alone. While some jurors might entertain serious doubt about the conviction, judges would always argue or threat those jurors; in the end, a guilty verdict was dictated by the judges. | >
> | The record of this trial was short (which is very typical of most records of Quakers trials), but it represents how a trial of Quakers looked like for most of the time: some evidence of the prisoners met at certain time and place was presented, and the jury was asked to give verdict based on such facts alone. While some jurors might have serious doubt about the conviction, judges would always argue or threat those jurors; in the end, a guilty verdict was dictated by the judges. | | | | |
<
< | That said, the third trial I want to share was actually another one that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. In October 15th 1664, Old Bailey London, about 40 Quakers were indicted for "contempt of the law in that case provided, and contrary to the peace of our lord king, did meet in a third time aofresaid..." These prisoners, apparently lacking the legal eloquence like Penn, only pleaded not guilty and made defenses like "I have wronged no man" and "I think the meetings at Bull and Mouth street to be lawful and peaceble." The jury in this trial seemed to be very unsatisfied with the witnesses. The first witness was the keeper of the prison (Newgate), who gave a self-contradictory testimony. When the jury challenged the witness, Judge Hyde overruled them and reproved the jury for being too scrupulous. The other witness gave an even worse testimony, that he swore to have seen the prisoners at Bull and Mouth, though he did not see them until they were brought to the Newgate. Again, one juror challenged such evidence; the Judge became angry, and "threatened him for undervaluing the King's witness, saying he should know the Court had power to punish him, and would do it." | >
> | That said, the third trial was actually another one that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. In October 15th 1664, Old Bailey London, about 40 Quakers were indicted for "contempt of the law in that case provided, and contrary to the peace of our lord king, did meet in a third time aofresaid..." These prisoners, apparently lacking the legal eloquence like Penn, only pleaded not guilty and made defenses like "I have wronged no man" and "I think the meetings at Bull and Mouth street to be lawful and peaceble." The jury in this trial seemed to be very unsatisfied with the witnesses. The first witness was the keeper of the prison (Newgate), who gave a self-contradictory testimony. When the jury challenged the witness, Judge Hyde overruled them and reproved the jury for being too scrupulous. The other witness gave an even worse testimony, that he swore to have seen the prisoners at Bull and Mouth, though the fact showed that he did not see them until they were brought to the Newgate. Again, one juror challenged such evidence; the Judge became angry, and "threatened him for undervaluing the King's witness, saying he should know the Court had power to punish him, and would do it." | | | | |
<
< | After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. Judge Hyde was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, he sent them out again. After one and a half hours, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that "there was evidence that they met, therefore we say guilty of meeting, but no evidence to prove what they did there, therefore we say not guilty of meeting contrary to the liturgy of the church of England." One of the jurors said:" My Lord, I have the venerable respect for the liturgy of the church of England, as to believe that it is according to the Scriptures, which allow of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and if any man in the world worship God in spirit, he doth not worship contrary to the liturgy, it being according to the Scriptures, if not, I shall abate my respect for it." Although six of the jurors seemed in the end inclined to comply with the Court's demand, the others would not despite all the persuasion and threats from the Judge. Judge Hyde after making more threats spoke to the unbending six jurors that they would be bound to answer for such misdemeanor at King's bench. "One of them [jurors] seemed unwilling to be bound, but the Judge told him, he must and should. Then said he, My Lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my Conscience." Therefore, the trial ended with the jury being fined a hundred pounds each. (I didn't see what happened to the prisoners in the texts; I assume they were still kept in prison for some other reasons). | >
> | After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. Judge Hyde was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, he sent them out again. After one and a half hours, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that "there was evidence that they met, therefore we say guilty of meeting, but no evidence to prove what they did there, therefore we say not guilty of meeting contrary to the liturgy of the church of England." One of the jurors said:" My Lord, I have the venerable respect for the liturgy of the church of England, as to believe that it is according to the Scriptures, which allow of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and if any man in the world worship God in spirit, he doth not worship contrary to the liturgy, it being according to the Scriptures, if not, I shall abate my respect for it." Although six of the jurors seemed in the end inclined to comply with the Court's demand, the others would not despite all the persuasion and threats from the Judge. Judge Hyde after making more threats spoke to the unbending six jurors that they would be bound to answer for such misdemeanor at King's bench. "One of them [jurors] seemed unwilling to be bound, but the Judge told him, he must and should. Then said he, My Lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my Conscience." Therefore, the trial ended with the jury being fined a hundred pounds each. | | |
Analysis | |
<
< | After presenting Penn's trial in more detail and putting in comparison three other trials of Quakers, I want to propose some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first factor is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more possible. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his eloquence and personal charisma. The last reason would be the jury, both as a whole and as individual jurors whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | >
> | Weaving around these trials, the rest of this article aims to lay out some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first reason is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more likely. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his eloquence and personal charisma. The last reason would be the jury, both as a whole and as individual jurors whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | | | Charles II's indulgence | |
<
< | When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, on January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all those who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he released all in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God." | >
> | When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, in January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all those who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he released all in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God." | | | | |
<
< | However, Charles's indulgence was ineffective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle for testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent." Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need of money, he had to be cautious. | >
> | However, Charles's indulgence was ineffective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent." Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need of money, he had to be cautious. | | | | |
<
< | Although King's indulgence proved to be very elusive, the Crown's attitude still could have been one of the big reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. As I said, this reason certainly was not a reason that led to the specific success of Penn's acquittal, but I believe it was helpful and important enough to mention. | >
> | Although King's indulgence proved to be very elusive, Charles' attitude still could have been one of the big reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. This might not be a specific reason for Penn's success, but it is a background contributor that supported Quakers like Penn to get an acquittal. | | | Penn's charisma | |
<
< | Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure one big reason, if not the reason. As we can see from Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England was not like trials we have today. First, defendants did not have trained legal counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent Quaker defendant who did not need a counsel and the most charismatic whom everyone liked. | >
> | Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure one big reason, if not the reason. As shown Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England were not like trials today. First, defendants did not have trained legal counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent Quaker defendant who did not need a counsel and the most charismatic whom everyone liked. | | | | |
<
< | In Penn's earliest formal education he learned Latin, Greek, and math. He entered Oxford at the age of 16, although soon sent out for nonconformity. Then Penn was sent to France at the court of Louis XIV. When Penn returned to London in 1664 (when he was 20), he was set to learn the law in Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he was sent to Ireland to take care of Penn estates, where he proved to be "sharp in his transaction concerning the estates, but graceful in local society". Therefore, by the time when he was tried in 1670, he was a man traveled and educated, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that he was potentially the most eloquent Quaker defendant one could conceive at that time. His legal training and the eloquence was clearly manifested in the trial we read, in his personal defense when he later became the frequent guest of the prison, and in his later works speaking for all Quakers. | >
> | In Penn's earliest formal education he learned Latin, Greek, and math. He entered Oxford at the age of 16, although soon sent out for nonconformity. Then Penn was sent to the court of Louis XIV in France. When Penn returned to London in 1664 (when he was 20), he was set to learn the law in Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he was sent to Ireland to take care of Penn estates, where he proved to be "sharp in his transaction concerning the estates, but graceful in local society". Therefore, by the time when he was tried in 1670, he was a man traveled and educated, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that he was potentially the most eloquent Quaker defendant one could conceive at that time. His legal training and his eloquence were clearly manifested in the trial we read, in his personal defense when he later became a frequent guest of the prison, and in his later works speaking for all Quakers. | | | | |
<
< | Besides being a defendant who did not need a counsel, William Penn was also a charismatic man everyone likes. If it can be arguable that Penn was the most eloquent Quaker defendant, it was an undeniable fact that Penn was the Quaker who enjoyed the highest social status. As the son of the Admiral Willam Penn, Penn junior, as I introduced above, received the first-class education and was acquainted with so many Dukes and Lords, even the King himself. The audience and jury might find most Quakers in other trials as ignoble people talking nonsense, they would not think so of William Penn. By the time of the trial, "he was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends." Although there was no direct evidence that shows how the jury and audience were attracted by him, he certainly also won their friendly attention, as the jurors would stand with him even when they would be punished for doing so. | >
> | Besides being a defendant who did not need counsel, William Penn was also a charismatic man everyone likes. If it can be arguable that Penn was the most eloquent Quaker defendant, it was an undeniable fact that Penn was the Quaker who enjoyed the highest social status. As the son of the Admiral Willam Penn, Penn junior, as introduced above, received a first-class education and was acquainted with so many Dukes and Lords, even the King himself. The audience and jury might find most Quakers in other trials as ignoble people talking nonsense, they would not think so of William Penn. By the time of the trial, "he was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends." Although there was no direct evidence that shows how the jury and audience were attracted by him, he certainly also won their friendly attention, as the jurors would stand with him even when they would be punished for doing so. | | |
Jurors' conscience | |
<
< | After we see how Penn's eloquence and charisma contributed to the acquittal verdict, I want to point out the last important reason: the jurors. I think from the comparison of the trials the jury is the most obvious factor that would determine the result of a trial. As we saw, in the trial right after Penn's, a guilty verdict can be easily attainted through careful selection of the jury; also in the third trial I presented, even when the defendants were not nearly as eloquent as Penn, a conscientious jury could still choose to hold its position and give acquittal verdict. | >
> | The last but also the most important reason for Penn's acquittal is the jury. In the trial right after Penn's, with the same facts and witnesses, a guilty verdict was easily attained through the careful selection of the jury. In the third trial, even when the defendants were not nearly as eloquent as Penn and only made a defense as simple as "I wronged no man", the conscientious jury still chose to hold its position and gave an acquittal verdict. | | | | |
<
< | The importance of the jury can be appreciated from two perspectives. First is the importance of the jury as a whole. In a time when there was no restraint on Judges' discretionary power, when even the King's tolerance policy proved to be elusive, the jury was perhaps the only entity that could keep Judges in check, allowing the slight possibility for Quakers to get away from the tyranny of the law. Thomas Green has a great discussion of this, but the idea is that the jury played a very important role in legal justice through "jury nullification", that a jury would also be a law finder sometimes, when they think the instruction given by the judge was unjust. The tracts Quakers wrote against the Bench's interpretation of the Conventicle Act was actually encouraging the jury to nullify the law given by the judges, and that actually was exactly what Penn's jury did. If the jury followed the instruction given by the Recorder, that a guilty verdict should be given based on the evidence of the existence of an assembly at a certain time and place, then the jury should have given a guilty verdict. However Penn successfully encouraged the jury to "nullify" the law; when the jury refused to say Penn was guilty of the assembling unlawfully, they reached such verdict upon their own interpretation of the law, that one should be guilty not only for assembling, but also requires proof of the seditious nature. So the jury was important to Penn's acquittal as it could and did perform a law finder's role. | >
> | The importance of the jury can be appreciated from two perspectives. First is the importance of the jury as a whole. In a time when there was no restraint on Judges' discretionary power, when even the King's tolerance policy proved to be elusive, the jury was perhaps the only entity that could keep judges in check, allowing the slight possibility for Quakers to get away from the tyranny of the law. Thomas Green has a great discussion of this, but the idea is that the jury played a very important role in legal justice through "jury nullification", that a jury would also be a law finder sometimes, when they think the instruction given by the judge was unjust. The tracts Quakers wrote against the Bench's interpretation of the Conventicle Act was actually encouraging the jury to nullify the law given by the judges, and that actually was exactly what Penn's jury did. If the jury followed the instruction given by the Recorder, that a guilty verdict should be given based on the evidence of the existence of an assembly at a certain time and place, then the jury should have given a guilty verdict. However Penn successfully encouraged the jury to "nullify" the law; when the jury refused to say Penn was guilty of the assembling unlawfully, they reached such verdict upon their own interpretation of the law, that one should be guilty not only for assembling, but also requires proof of the seditious nature. So the jury was important to Penn's acquittal as it could and did perform a law finder's role. | | | | |
<
< | That said, I also want readers to see the importance of the jury from the perspectives of individual jurors, to appreciate the impact of each individual juror had on the result. We should not forget that each juror was a human being, that he could be afraid as to bend to judge's dictation, nonchalant as to follow the majority, or conscientious as to stand against judges' unrestraint rage. It is important to notice that for example in Penn's trial, it was very likely to be Mr. Bushel who unified the non-agreeing jury at the beginning to firmly stood together with Penn in the end. And at the same time there were also some jurors like William Smith who was "like an old bloodhound to hunt and persecute innocent people", who turned a jury from ten to two against conviction to giving a unanimous guilty verdict. The importance of individual juror's attitude could not be overlooked also because even though after Bushel's case judges could no control the jury during court proceedings, they still could control the result by controlling the process of picking individual jurors, like what the Court did after Penn's trial. In a word, individual juror like Mr. Bushel's conscience was essential for Penn's acquittal; had Robinson successfully challenged out Bushel for not kissing the book when swearing, the result could be completely different. | >
> | That said, the importance of those composing individual jurors, the impact of each individual juror had on the result, should also be noticed. We should not forget that each juror was a human being, that he could be afraid as to bend to judge's dictation, nonchalant as to follow the majority, or conscientious as to stand against judges' unrestraint rage. In Penn's trial, it was Mr. Bushel who unified the non-agreeing jury at the beginning to firmly stood together with Penn in the end. In contrast, there were also jurors like William Smith who was "like an old bloodhound to hunt and persecute innocent people", who turned a jury from ten to two against conviction to giving a unanimous guilty verdict. Each juror's conscience can change the result of a trial, sometimes even the course of legal history. The bench was actually aware of how much jurors' conscience matters, and even though after Bushel's case judges could no longer dictate the jury during court proceedings, they still could dictate the result by controlling the process of jury selection, like what the Court did after Penn's trial. In a word, individual juror like Mr. Bushel's conscience was essential for Penn's acquittal; had Robinson successfully challenged out Bushel for not kissing the Bible when swearing, the result could be completely different. | | |
Conclusion--Criminal trial as a show |
|