These trials and court decisions span three centuries, from a London courtroom in 1670 to the Supreme Court in 1968. Some are about juries that refused to convict. Others are about judges deciding how far a jury's power reaches, and whether you have a right to a jury at all. The quotes come straight from court records and official histories, and the link under each case goes to the one we quoted. For what your own state's law says today, see your state's chapter.
Bushell's Case, England, 1670
At the trial of William Penn and William Mead, two Quakers, the jury would not find them guilty. The Library of Congress describes the evidence for a conviction as conclusive. The trial judge imprisoned the jurors and denied them daily necessities "until they rendered a guilty verdict." One of the jurors, Edward Bushell, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughan of the Court of Common Pleas "held that a judge may not imprison a jury for refusing to deliver the desired verdict."
In 1965, Chief Justice Warren of the United States Supreme Court wrote that the decision "put an end to the practice of fining or otherwise punishing jury members who failed to reach the decision directed by the court."
Sources: Library of Congress, Trial by Jury; Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965), Warren, C.J., concurring (Library of Congress).
The Zenger trial, New York, 1735
John Peter Zenger, a printer, was charged with printing and publishing a "false, scandalous, and seditious libel" against the governor of New York. At the trial, Chief Justice DeLancey said to the jury: "The laws in my opinion are very clear; they cannot be admitted to justify a libel." Zenger's lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, argued that "the truth is a defense against libel." The jury came back with its answer: "Not Guilty."
Source: National Park Service, The Trial of John Peter Zenger.
Georgia v. Brailsford, United States Supreme Court, 1794
A civil case, tried before a jury at the Supreme Court itself. In his charge, Chief Justice John Jay reminded the jurors of "the good old rule, that on questions of fact it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court to decide." He then told them that they had "nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." He asked them to give the court's view of the law the respect due to it, and closed the point with: "both objects are lawfully within your power of decision."
Source: Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794) (Library of Congress; the 1794 printing, spelling modernized in the quotations).
The Shadrach Minkins rescue trials, Boston, 1851
In February 1851, Shadrach Minkins was held in the Boston courthouse under the new Fugitive Slave Law. A group of Black men led by Lewis Hayden rushed the courtroom and freed him, and Minkins escaped to Canada. Men accused of aiding the rescue were then tried.
Secretary of State Daniel Webster wrote to President Fillmore: "It is of great importance to convict [Elizur] Wright." Wright, an abolitionist editor, was acquitted. The National Park Service notes that his jury included Francis Bigelow, the abolitionist who had hidden Minkins in his Concord home after the rescue. James Scott, accused of leading the attack, stood trial, and the jury did not convict him. John Coburn was arrested and later acquitted.
Sources: National Park Service, Boston Courthouse, Elizur Wright, Smith Court and the Underground Railroad, John Coburn House.
The Christiana treason trial, Philadelphia, 1851
In September 1851, a Maryland slaveholder sought the arrest of four men at Christiana, Pennsylvania, under the Fugitive Slave Act, and he was mortally wounded in the fight that followed. Castner Hanway and more than thirty others were indicted for treason. At Hanway's trial in federal court, Judge Grier told the jury that he could not be found guilty on that indictment "unless you find that he intended to levy war against the United States." The jury was out for about fifteen minutes and returned a verdict of not guilty. The National Park Service records that the charges against Hanway and all the others were dropped by the end of the trial.
Sources: Report of the trial of Castner Hanway for treason (1852) (Library of Congress); National Park Service, A History of the Trial of Castner Hanway and Others.
Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 1895
The Supreme Court held that "in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence." Under any other system, the Court wrote, "our government will cease to be a government of laws, and become a government of men."
Justice Gray, joined by Justice Shiras, dissented. In their view the case "was not submitted to the decision of the jury as required by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Source: Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) (Library of Congress).
Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
At Horning's trial the facts were not in dispute, and the judge told the jury that, while they could not be made to return a guilty verdict, it was their duty to do so. The Supreme Court let the conviction stand. Writing for the Court, Justice Holmes said: "The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts."
Source: Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920) (Library of Congress).
The trial for the murder of Emmett Till, Mississippi, 1955
Emmett Till, a 14-year-old Black youth from Chicago, was abducted and murdered while visiting family in Mississippi. Two white men, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, were indicted for murder. In the words of the United States Department of Justice, they were "tried by a local, all-white jury, which quickly acquitted them." After the acquittal, both men confessed to the kidnapping and murder to a journalist, whose account was published in Look magazine in January 1956. The Department closed its last investigation of the case in 2021 without charges.
Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Emmett Till case file and notice to close the file (2021).
Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968
The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a jury trial in state criminal cases. The guarantee covers every case that would come within the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury if it were tried in a federal court. Explaining why, the Court wrote that the right to be tried by a jury "gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge."
Source: Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (Library of Congress).