John Peter Zenger Jury Nullification

Two options are presented to a jury in a court of law: guilty, or non-guilty. In any case, there exists a third option no legal advisor is allowed to tell a jury. Despite the evidence presented, if a jury feels it is morally incorrect to prosecute a defendant, they have the power to acquit them. In order to maintain a free justice system, it is important for a jury to have the power to nullify the law under specific circumstances, much like in the case of John Peter Zenger.

The foreign concept to many, jury nullification, is an often overlooked right of a juror, but has a huge impact on the outcome of a trial, as demonstrated in the case of John Peter Zenger. Jury Nullification exists not as a law in the justice system, but as a logical consequence

of two other laws. A jury cannot be faulted for making a “wrong” decision, and “Because of the double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, defendants cannot be tried again following an acquittal, despite the jury’s rogue behavior” (Portman 1). These two laws make it possible for a jury to acquit a defendant, in spite of the evidence. Despite the orders of a judge “to “Follow these instructions,” and the oath each juror takes to follow the law, juries have the raw power to ignore or change the legal rules they apply to the evidence” (Portman 1). This means that juries are not bound to give sentences solely based on whether or not the defendant breaks the law. To such a degree, “The jury is the conscience of society, and their job is not only to decide whether the defendant did the acts charged, but whether he should be condemned and punished for it” (Portman 1). A situation such as the Zenger trial would be an example where jurors blindly following the law would be horribly unjust.

It is easy to say that the United States values and takes pride in free expression more than any other country in the world, and one of the most noteworthy progressions in protecting the freedom of jury nullification happened in the case of John Peter Zenger in 1735.

Zenger, a German immigrant and aspiring news publicist, printed The New York Weekly Journal. Zenger published one issue that, “harshly pointed out the actions of the corrupt royal governor, William S. Cosby” (UShistory.org 1). More specifically, he had accused Cosby of rigging an election in his favor. As the governor disagreed with Zenger’s accusations, he charged him with the crime of libel, and sought to find the other writers whom Zenger refused to reveal. In a blind fit of anger, “Cosby responded to these frustrations by proclaiming a reward of fifty pounds for the discovery of the authors of the libels and by issuing an order that Zenger's newspapers be publicly burned by the common hangman” (Linder 1). After arresting Zenger, Cosby insisted that he had committed crimes of libel against the government. Cosby would also foresee it that Zenger would not win the trial, by stacking the jury with biased individuals. This is one of the ways Cosby abused his power as the governor in order to refuse fairness upon Zenger. Alexander Hamilton, an attorney at the time, was assigned to defend Zenger against the seemingl unbeatable Cosby. In a stirring appeal to the jury, “Hamilton pleaded for his new client's release.

"It is not the cause of one poor printer," he claimed, "but the cause of liberty" ” (ushistory.org 1). There was no debate to whether or not Zenger published the articles, but Hamilton suggested that the law had been unrightfully enforced upon him. After 10 minutes of deliberation, the jury came back with the verdict of not guilty, despite what the evidence suggested. They felt it was necessary to nullify the law as it was incorrect for Cosby to accuse Zenger of the crime.
Although the law dictated that Zenger should have been imprisoned for publishing “lies”, it would have been morally wrong to punish him.

As Hamilton explains, “I shall therefore only observe to you that as the facts or words in the information are confessed, the only thing that can come in question before you is whether the words as set forth in the information make a libel. And that is a matter of law, no doubt, and which you may leave to the Court” (Linder 1). These words convey that the crime of libel was being wrongfully applied to Zenger, therefore proving the importance of having a conscious voice that is the jury. In a state of rage, Cosby exclaims, “The great pains Mr. Hamilton has taken to show how little regard juries are to pay to the opinion of judges, and his insisting so much upon the conduct of some judges in trials of this kind, is done no doubt with a design that you should take but very little notice of what I might say upon this occasion” (Linder 1). He mainly takes issue with the jury’s deliberate disregard for his orders, and demands they return with a guilty verdict. In spite of this, the Jurors understood that the correct thing to do was to acquit Zenger. The elation sparked by the trial was heard across the nation, and word spread of the unusual verdict. This was a stepping stone in freedom in America, as, “Concern about likely jury nullification discouraged prosecutions, and press freedom in America began to blossom” (Linder 1). The trial’s outcome

was a marvelous display of how a seemingly flawed legal loophole can do wonders for a nation as a whole.

The case of John Zenger was one among many trials that paved the way for freedom in America. Time and time again, unjust applications of law are corrected by the little-known act juries can perform. Jury nullification, the righteous rule of the people, is a necessary part in preserving a free justice system in America.