Early American juries, not judges, determined the law through jury nullification

Evidence

This division of labor did not develop in the United States until the nineteenth century. Before that, the jury determined both the facts and the law. Although the judge instructed jurors about the law, they remained free to ignore the judge’s instructions and render verdicts based on their consciences or their own independent interpretation of the law. Such “jury nullification” undercut unpopular laws by allowing groups of ordinary citizens to decide which laws would be enforced. In the decade preceding independence, for example, juries in the American colonies effectively nullified seditious libel laws, which outlawed criticism of the English government, by consistently refusing to convict those charged with violating these laws. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 868

Categorization

• XREF: Jury nullification history connects to legitimacy debates over juries as democratic checks on state power. — connects to: Jury nullification persists even though voters exceed their legal authority — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 870; English juries originally judged from personal knowledge, not presented evidence; Jurors decide cases based on personal sympathy rather than facts — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1451 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• English juries originally judged from personal knowledge, not presented evidence #complicates (0.78)
• Jurors decide cases based on personal sympathy rather than facts #corroborates (0.72) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1451