Suđenje pred porotom u stara vremena.

Thomas Frost.

WHEN we congratulate ourselves, kao što smo tako sposobni učiniti, o duljini vremena u Engleskoj je uspostavljen sustav suđenja pred porotom, i zaštitu koju pruža protiv pokušaja opterećivanja zakona na štetu optuženika, često zanemarujemo činjenicu da se institucija nije uvijek pokazala zaštitom kada sud, djelujući pod utjecajem krune, nastojao ishoditi osudu. Tek su u drugoj polovici šesnaestog stoljeća porote počele pokazivati ​​tu odlučnost da vlastitu prosudbu ne pokore željama onih na visokoj vlasti, koja se dalje razvila u toku sedamnaestog. Zanimljiva ilustracija starog duha sudaca, i novi duh žirija, je omogućeno suđenjem sir Nicholasu Throckmortonu, u 1554, pod optužbom za veleizdaju, u zavjeri za smrt ili svrgavanje kraljice, i zauzimanje silom oružja Londonskog tornja. Optužnicu su vodili narednik Stanford i državni odvjetnik, Grifin, bivši vodeći; i vrijedno je spomena da su i oni i vrhovni sudac Bromley ispitivali zatvorenika na gotovo isti način koji je još uvijek uobičajen u Francuskoj i Belgiji, nastojeći pribaviti dokaze koji bi ga osudili iz njegovih vlastitih usta. Pothvat nije uspio, a jedini kriminalistički dokaz protiv zatvorenika sadržan je u navodnim priznanjima Wintera i Croftsa, WHO, međutim, nisu pozvani kao svjedoci.

Žiri, nakon višesatnog razmišljanja, izrekao je nevinju presudu, na što im se glavni sudac obratio prijetećim tonovima, izreka, “Remember yourselves better. Have you considered substantially the whole evidence as it was declared and recited? The matter doth touch the Queen’s highness and yourselves also. Take good heed what you do.” The jury were firm, međutim, and the foreman replied to the remonstrance of the bench, “We have found him not guilty, agreeable to all our consciences.” Then the Attorney-General rose, and addressing the court, rekao je, “An it please you, my lords, forasmuch as it seemeth these men of the jury, which have strangely acquitted the prisoner of his treasons whereof he was indicted, will forthwith depart the court, I pray you for the Queen that they and every one of them may be bound in a recognizance of £500 a-piece, to answer to such matters as they shall be charged with in the Queen’s behalf, whensoever they shall be charged or called.” The court went beyond even this audacious request, for they actually committed the jury to prison! Four of them were discharged shortly afterwards, having so little moral stamina left as to make a humble confession that they had done wrong; but the remaining eight were brought before the Star Chamber and severely dealt with, three being ordered to pay a fine of £2,000 each, and the others £200 each.

In the following reign, in a case in which three persons were indicted for murder, and the jury found them guilty of manslaughter only, contrary to the direction of the court, the jurors were both fined and bound in recognizances for their future “good behaviour.” A decision of the Lord Chancellor, the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron, in the reign of James I., sets forth that when a person is found guilty on indictment, the jury should not be questioned; but when a jury has acquitted a prisoner against what the court holds to be proof of guilt, they may be charged in the Star Chamber, “for their partiality in finding a manifest offender not guilty.” In 1667, we find this view extended to the case of grand juries ignoring a bill on grounds which the court did not consider sufficient. Chief Justice Kelying in that year having fined a grand jury of the County of Somerset, for not finding a true bill against a man accused of murder; ali, says the report, “because they were gentlemen of repute in the county, the court spared the fine.” This case, and several others in which the same judge had acted in a similar manner, were brought under the notice of the House of Commons, međutim, and that assembly resolved “that the precedents and practice of fining or imprisoning jurors for verdicts is illegal.”

Notwithstanding this resolution of the House of Commons, William Penn, and another member of the Society of Friends, named Mead, being indicted at the Old Bailey for having, with other persons unknown, unlawfully and tumultuously assembled in Gracechurch Street, in the City of London, the Recorder dealt with the jury in a manner which caused the illegality of fining jurors for their verdicts to be again brought into question. The indictment set forth that Penn, by agreement with and abetment of Mead, did in the open street speak and preach to the persons there assembled, by reason whereof a great concourse of people gathered and remained a long time, in contempt of the King and the law, and to the great terror and disturbance of many of His Majesty’s liege subjects. The trial took place before the Recorder, the Lord Mayor, and the Aldermen; and when witnesses had deposed that Penn had preached, and that Mead was there with him, the Recorder summed up the evidence, and the jury retired to consider their verdict. They were absent a considerable time, at length returning with the verdict that Penn was “guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street.”

“Is that all?” the Recorder asked.

“That is all I have in commission,” replied the foreman.

“You had as good say nothing,” observed the Recorder, and the Lord Mayor added, “Was it not an unlawful assembly? You mean he was speaking to a tumult of people there.”

"Moj gospodaru,” returned the foreman, “that is all I have in commission.”

“The law of England,” said the Recorder “will not allow you to part until you have given in your verdict.”

“We have given in our verdict,” returned the jury, “and we can give in no other.”

“Gentlemen,” said the Recorder, “niste dali svoju presudu, i bilo je dobro da ne kažete ništa; stoga idi i razmisli još jednom, da možemo okončati ovaj mučan posao.”

Žiri je tada tražio olovku, tinta, i papir, i da se zahtjevu udovolji, ponovno su otišli u mirovinu, vrativši se nakon kraće pauze s pismenom presudom. Proglasili su Penna “krivim za govor ili propovijedanje skupu okupljenom zajedno u ulici Gracechurch,” i Mead nije kriv.

“Gentlemen,” said the Recorder, glede porote ljutito, “Nećete biti otpušteni dok ne dobijemo presudu koju će sud prihvatiti; i bit ćeš zatvoren, bez mesa, piće, vatra, i duhan. Ne smijete tako zlorabiti sud. Imat ćemo presudu, ili ćeš zbog toga gladovati.”

Penn je protestirao protiv ovog kursa, upon which the Recorder ordered the officers of the court to stop his mouth or remove him. The jury not leaving their box, the Recorder again directed them to retire and re-consider their verdict. Penn made a spirited remonstrance. “The agreement of twelve men,“ rekao je, “is a verdict in law, and such a one having been given by the jury, I require the clerk of the peace to record it, as he will answer at his peril. And if the jury bring in another verdict contradictory to this, I affirm they are perjured men in law. You are Englishmen," on je dodao, turning to the jury, “mind your privilege; give not away your right.” The court then adjourned to the following morning, when the prisoners were brought to the bar, and the jury, who had been locked up all night, bili su poslani po. Imali su čvrstu svrhu, i preko svog nadzornika ustrajali u svojoj presudi.

“Koja je ovo svrha?“, zahtijevao je Zapisničar, "Imat ću presudu." Zatim se obratio porotniku, po imenu Bušel, kojemu je prethodnog dana prijetio, On je rekao, “ti si faktički tip; Obilježit ću te, i dok imam što raditi u gradu, Pazit ću na tebe.”

Penn je ponovno prosvjedovala zbog ovakvih prijetnji poroti, na što je gradonačelnik naredio da mu se začepe usta, i da tamničar donese okove i lancima ga pričvrsti za pod; ali se ne čini da je to učinjeno. Porota je ponovno upućena da se povuče i donese drugačiju presudu, te su se povukli uz protest, predradnik kaže, “We have given in our verdict, and all agreed to it; and if we give in another, it will be a force upon us to save our lives.”

According to the narrative written by Penn and Mead, and quoted in Forsyth’s “History of Trial by Jury,” this scene took place on Sunday morning, and the court adjourned again to the following day, kada, unless they were supplied with food surreptitiously, they must have fasted since Saturday. The foreman gave in their verdict in writing, as before, to which they had severally subscribed their names. The clerk received it, but was prevented from reading it by the Recorder, who desired him to ask for a “positive verdict.”

“That is our verdict,” said the foreman. “We have subscribed to it.”

“Then hearken to your verdict,” said the clerk. “You say that William Penn is not guilty in manner and form as he stands indicted; you say that William Mead is not guilty in manner and form as he stands indicted; and so say you all.”

The jury responded affirmatively, and their names were then called over, and each juror was commanded to give his separate verdict, which they did unanimously.

“I am sorry, gentlemen,” the Recorder then said, “you have followed your own judgments and opinions, rather than the good and wholesome advice which was given you. God keep my life out of your hands! But for this the court fines you forty marks a man, and imprisonment till paid.”

Penn was about to leave the dock, but was prevented from doing so, upon which he said, “I demand my liberty, oslobodila ga je porota."

“Sledite svoje novčane kazne,“, rekao je gradonačelnik zatvorenicima.

“Novčane kazne, za što?“, zahtijevao je Penn.

“Zbog nepoštivanja suda,“, odgovorio je gradonačelnik.

"Pitam,“, uzviknuo je Penn, “ako je to prema temeljnim zakonima Engleske, da bilo koji Englez treba biti novčano kažnjen ili povrijeđen, ali po presudi svojih kolega ili porote; budući da izričito proturječi četrnaestom i dvadeset devetom poglavlju Velike povelje Engleske, koji kažu, ‘Nijedan slobodnjak ne smije biti povrijeđen osim prisegom dobrih i zakonitih ljudi iz okoline.’”

“Odvedite ga,” povikao je Zapisničar.

“Oni tada,”, nastavlja pripovijest, “odvukao zatvorenike u jamčevinu, a odatle ih poslao u Newgate, for non-payment of their fines; and so were their jury. But the jury were afterwards discharged upon an habeas corpus, returnable in the Common Pleas, where their commitment was adjudged illegal.” Even then, judges appear to have remained unconvinced of the illegality of the practice, or stubborn in their desire to enforce their own views or wishes upon juries; for the question was not regarded as finally settled until the decision in the Court of Common Pleas was clinched, iste godine, by a similar judgment of the Court of King’s Bench.