Early nineteenth-century courts reassigned the jury from community law-maker to fact-finder.

Evidence

In the early years of the nineteenth century, the roles of judge and jury were subtly altered and redefined. Up to that point, both judge and jury had been relatively free to act, each within its sphere. According to William Nelson, the jury “ceased to be an adjunct of local communities which articulated into positive law the ethical standards of those communities.” It was rather an “adjunct” of the court, whose main job was to handle “facts,” not “law.” The classic definition of the power and role of judge and jury came to be understood as this: the judge was master of “law,” the jury the master of fact. Nelson traces this understanding, in Massachusetts, to the first decade of the nineteenth century. This became the general understanding. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 855

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The historic English jury had local knowledge and was subject to judicial coercion. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 867