The “Wager of Law”, there was 1 defendant and 11 “oath helpers”. So there were 12 compurgators because they came to “purge” you from accusations. They would swear an oath on a Bible. Today it will be called character witnesses. If they all swore this under oath in court, then the defendant would be free. It was a difficult thing to do because if they found out later that he lied, they would be facing serious penalties (excommunication, excluded from the society, social and economic life...).
Lecture 5 : The Origins of the Jury Trial
A retenir :
Frederic Maitland (father of the English legal history) had to find a body of neighbors summoned under oath by a public official who had to answer the question "What happened ?"
The Normans also introduced the Inquest. Today it would be the equivalent of the Grand Jury as they are the one conducting the investigation. He established the state’s right to obtain information from his subjects, it's the method that will be developed in Europe.
A retenir :
Glanville (1118) published a treatise on the law and customs of England
The assize of Clarendon (1166) represented a veritable change. You would seek a writ to order an assize to be held down. The assize system lasted 800 years and was abolished in 1971. The sources that allow us to know all this, the earliest come from Glanville (Anglo Norman source), he wrote a work in 1891 called « a treaty’s on the laws and customs on the realm of England ». Made by Ranoulf de Glanville he was sort of high chief.
Définition
Trial by Ordeal
Hot water: an object would be dropped in a cauldron of hot water. You had to grab the object to be proven innocent.
Cold water: you would be tight and they would throw on you cold water. If you floated, you were a witch and proven guilty but if you didn't flow you would be innocent.
Hot iron: a piece of iron was heated on until glowing. Then you had to take it in your hand and walk with it for a certain distance. If your wound was infected, it would mean that you were guilty.
Morsol: they would give you a piece of food with a feather on it but the defendant didn't know. If you choked and gagged you were guilty
It was used in criminal cases and it produced a lot of acquaintances. Most of the people undergoing an ordeal were proven innocent. So criminals will begin to calculate the penalty. It was a big problem for the criminal law
Since the priest couldn’t be there they had the 12 men present. Judges began to resort to presenting juries which brings us to : « Trial by Juries ». They took these presenting juries, they ranged all up to 48 people. They were asked for their opinion on guilt or innocence. Some members of the presenting juries could be accusers. So sometimes it was very biased. The equival rates went way down then
If someone waives a jury trial, the statute of Westminster (1275): “prison forte et dure”. The judges changed in the court cases the words that were written in the Statute of Westminster to “peine forte et dure” = became a powerful kind of torture. You could be crunched by stones, put into prison. People would definitely choose that rather than choosing the trial by jury. Because if you were found guilty your property was taken and children would be left with nothing. So they preferred to be crushed than make their family suffer
By 1352: they started taking the accusers out of the jury. By the 14th century, they took the accusers out of the jury. This date is an important reform.
By 1450, the jury began hearing witnesses for the first time, they would testify. Extended to civil law by the 15th and 16th century
The Bushell's Case (1670)
This case involved William Penn, he was a nonconformist (the quickers or quacker dunno). He was charged with unlawful assembly since he was holding meetings as the protestants were being persecuted. The juries refused to find him guilty for holding religious gatherings. So the judge locked up the juries until they changed their judgment. The judge found them “In Contempt of court”. The jury was sent to prison and they had to pay a fine.
A retenir :
Bushel appealed for the writ of Habeas Corpus which brought a person to Court. A judge can get someone out of jail and give them a hearing. Chief Justice John VAUN said: “the jury and not the judge find what the fact is” = great division between the judge and jury
In Bushel' case, Justice Vaun discussed the debate that happened because they were questioning if the jury committed perjury (swear but lie). He says it's no problem because there’s already an attaining jury. It’s also asked : « what if a jury disobeys the judge » : they would be punished with Prison Forte et dure = establishing the statute of Westminster