B.2(v). Right to the Final Verdict of a Jury

Every Person has the Right to an impartial jury and to a verdict that courts may not override on factual grounds. Juries are the sole judges of fact in both civil and criminal trials. Judicial review on appeal can only consider the application of law and procedure, not the jury's findings. Judgments as a Matter of Law or Judgments Notwithstanding the Verdict are invalid, as they overturn the principle of fact-finding by jury.

The right to trial by an impartial jury is a right that we teach grade school children. The idea that only other people like us have the context to stand in judgment over us is a core principle of the American legal system. With roots in the Magna Carta,[1] which were expanded into the concept of the “rights of Englishmen” by the colonial period,[2] this right was ancient in origin, even to the framers of the Constitution of 1789.

The historical fact that King George III denied them those rights[3] is reflected in the specific grievance from the Declaration of Independence, “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury…”[4] This abuse was severe enough that protection of the right to trial by jury is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.[5]

The whole purpose of enshrining this right was in reaction to judgments handed down against individuals by “expert” judges. Juries were and are supposed to be the voice of the People, which stands between judicial authority and the accused. During the colonial period, the crown selected judges who reliably ruled in favor of the crown. This was naked tyranny. That historical context begs the question, then, why are judges in the United States allowed to override jury verdicts?

A current legal theory holds that fact-finding is the exclusive domain of the jury. So far, that aligns with the language of this Charter and with a plain reading of the Sixth Amendment. But that theory also insists that the legal sufficiency of the evidence, that is, whether or not the evidence is enough to convict or acquit, lies within the court’s domain. Judges overturn verdicts based on this legal theory, invoking Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL). Giving all the respect that opinion deserves, that argument is so full of spin that it seems like something left behind on the south end of a northbound horse. If the evidence were sufficient to convict, then the jury would have found it so. Evidence proves or refutes a fact. If the jury found or rejected a fact, then, by definition, they accepted or rejected what the evidence showed them. The mere fact that a judge thinks they are foolish is irrelevant. Why does the judge get to second-guess what the jury found that the evidence did or didn’t prove? And if the judge can do so, why disrupt the lives of ordinary citizens in a mock show that they are the arbiters of fact? It would be better to honestly admit that the judge is the sole arbiter in the courtroom and that a jury’s verdict only counts if the judge decides that it does.

Another justification for overturning a jury verdict is the idea that in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, English common law allowed “demurrer to evidence” and “arrest of judgment.” These were post-conviction judicial reviews. The obvious problem, as I have outlined above, is that the founding era's insistence on the right to trial by jury originally stemmed from the abuse and withholding of this right under English common law during the colonial period. It is farcical, at best, to say, “Well, that’s what was happening before they enshrined this right they didn’t think they had enough protection for, so it must be okay.” Even worse, the arguments under Rule 50 are that this Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict (JNOV) is allowed when “reasonable men could not differ” on the evidence. Again, the jury does differ, and if the argument is that they weren't reasonable, the fault lies in the voir dire process, not the finding of fact. And if the voir dire process is at fault, that is the responsibility of the judge. So, effectively, the argument becomes, “The jury was unreasonable, so let’s return the finding of the verdict to the person who oversaw the process for making sure the jury would be reasonable.” The whole argument is ridiculous.

The right in this Charter is clear. Juries are the final and sole judges of fact. No judge may overturn those findings. Appeals and review may only be made based on law or procedure.

---

[1] Magna Carta, cl. 39 (1215). Although this established a legal and constitutional right to something like a jury, it only applied to a very narrow class at the time of its adoption.

[2] See William Lambarde, trans. Archaionomia, siue, De priscis Anglorum legibus libri (London, Ex officina Ioannis Daij, 1568); Sir Edward Coke, The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (1797); The Petition of Right, 1628, 3 Chas. 1, c. 1 (Eng.).

[3] See The Sugar Act 1764, 4 Geo. 3, c. 15 (Eng.); The Stamp Act 1765, 5 Geo. 3, c. 12 (Eng.); as well as the broad abuse of the Vice-Admiralty Courts in the Americas during that period.

[4] Declaration of Independence para. 18 (U.S. 1776).

[5] U.S. Const. amend. VI.