Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Zenger at 290: The Jury’s Duty to Say No to Government Oppression

by August 4, 2025
August 4, 2025
Zenger at 290: The Jury’s Duty to Say No to Government Oppression

Mike Fox

Two hundred ninety years ago today, in what would come to be known as a celebrated early example of jury nullification in the New World, a New York jury freed dissident publisher John Peter Zenger from the clutches of a government determined to silence its critics. With British subjugation fresh in their minds, the Framers envisioned the jury as far more than a fact-finding body. They saw it as a critical fortress, a bulwark against government oppression. They had witnessed firsthand the biased verdicts of judges loyal to the Crown, and in response, they enshrined the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers in the very foundation of the new nation’s legal system.

The Framers understood the jury trial to be a bedrock of criminal adjudication. At the Founding, the function of the criminal jury was not confined to determining guilt. Instead, jury service empowered ordinary citizens to act as a check on the wrongful exercise of state power, preventing the arbitrary or oppressive application of the law. Jurors were the community’s voice, ensuring that the extraordinary power of the state would not be used for tyrannical ends. In fact, the right to a criminal trial by jury is the only right mentioned in both the unamended text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a testament to its profound importance. The Constitution explicitly commands that the trial of “all” federal crimes be by jury, a command underscored by the Sixth Amendment’s declaration that “in all criminal prosecutions” a defendant has the right to a public trial by an impartial jury.

The historical conception of a criminal jury stands in stark contrast to the hollowed-out version jurors are led to believe exists today. When Zenger published pieces critical of New York’s royal governor, William Cosby, he was charged with seditious libel. But his jury exercised a prerogative that criminal jurors still possess today—the power to acquit against the evidence when justice demands.

Whether protecting dissident publishers like Zenger from politically motivated prosecutions or acquitting abolitionists prosecuted for delivering fellow human beings from bondage under the Fugitive Slave Act, jury nullification was employed without controversy before, during, and after the Founding to safeguard victims of an excessively punitive government.

Founding-era jurors were the last line of defense against unjust convictions and punishments. They could blunt the force of immoral laws and arbitrary prosecutions by refusing to subject their neighbors to unjust laws or overtly cruel punishments.

These historical powers and duties included more than just the prerogative to acquit against the evidence. Jurors could ask questions, including what would happen to the defendant if they were to convict, and draw inferences from how those questions were answered or ignored. Additionally, jurors weren’t required to accept the judge’s interpretation of the law, despite being told that they must.

These powers still unquestionably exist today. Yet in a stark and extraordinary shift from past practice, modern criminal jurors are misled to believe that they’re merely fact finders.

Today, prosecutors and judges—often former courtroom advocates for the government—go to considerable lengths to curate the jury pool, ensuring that those who best understand the historic injustice-preventing role of a juror are among the least likely to serve. System actors work tirelessly to shape the perspective of those who do get to serve, all but guaranteeing they won’t say no—no matter how unjust the prosecution or how draconian the sentence.

With a president who has shown a willingness to use the coercive power of the Justice Department to target his adversaries, this historical role of the jury is all the more important. Just as Zenger’s jury defied a tyrannical governor, jurors today can—and should—defy the unjust application of laws that undermine the very premise upon which this nation was founded and tear at the conscience of the community.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
What Is SameAgeDates? A Closer Look at Presence‑Driven Dating

You may also like

China’s Heroic Unofficial Historians

October 6, 2023

Should States Run Lotteries?

November 22, 2024

Trump Assassination Attempt: Investigation Update

July 15, 2024

Learning from the Caribbean CBDC Experience

July 24, 2025

Should Governments Encourage Population Growth?

August 19, 2024

Government Efficiency Starts with Rejuvenating FOIA

December 11, 2024

No Sunset in Sight for Solar Protectionism?

April 26, 2024

Cato Tax Bootcamp: Tax Code 101

January 14, 2025

“Repeal the Tax Exclusion for Employer-Sponsored Insurance to...

January 24, 2025

Debunking the Myth of Swedish Socialism—Again

August 17, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Zenger at 290: The Jury’s Duty to Say No to Government Oppression

      August 4, 2025
    • What Is SameAgeDates? A Closer Look at Presence‑Driven Dating

      August 4, 2025
    • Cryptocurrency Trading: Five Strategies to Strengthen Your Position as a Reputable Broker

      August 4, 2025
    • UAE’s World’s Safest Country Ranking Creates ‘Safety Premium’ in Real Estate Market

      August 4, 2025
    • GOP memo preps House Republicans to tout Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ as Dems go on offense

      August 4, 2025
    • Cornyn takes swing at James, Schiff with new LETITIA Act targeting ‘crooked politicians’

      August 4, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,661)
    • Investing (2,171)
    • Politics (16,296)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved