The Trial Of John Peter Zenger Summary

Jury Nullification- Is when a jury reaches a verdict that is opposing to that of all the evidence presented.

(2) Tamanaha, Brian. 2008. “Law”, Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History, St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-0095. Link in Course Readings and Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1082436&rec=1&srcabs=1012051

Zahn had arrived in Australia as a 3 yr old in 1824, with his parents on board the ship 'Sir George Seymour' arriving at Point Henry, Geelong Victoria. Prior to his timely enlistment into the NSW police, Zahn had been brought up before the court on many previous occasions on charges varying from giving false information, Highway Robbery, Theft, obtaining money under false pretenses as well as many other offences. However, on the 28th November 1862, Zahn who had for an Egyptian the luck of the Irish had not triggered suspicion regarding his Victorian connection and had been committed for trial at Bathurst. However, whilst in custody Zahn had brought to the attention of the police his close acquaintance with Gardiner, Gilbert and others and

For the American colonies, the 1700s reaped many life-changing events. For starters, The Zenger trial opened the colonies to the discussion of free thought and public expression. John Peter Zenger was arrested on charges of libel after publishing pamphlets offering critical statements about people of power and their rule. Once the case reached the courts his wife continued posting pamphlets for the public in order to offer the jury a non-biased and secondary opinion to choose from. This along with the help of Philadelphia lawyer Andrew Hamilton proved that though Zenger did produce the pamphlet, he had a right to voice his opinion. Second, The French and Indian war increased animosities between Great Britain and France. The war lasted from

In 1733, Governor Cosby attemped to rig an election in Westchester County. This resulted in opposition from the Popular Party, which included members such as James Alexander, Rip Van Dam and Lewis Morris. Cosby had illegaly removed Chief Justice Lewis Morris and replaced him with one of his supporters, James Delancey. Morris became the leader of the Popular Party. During the time, the only newspaper in New York was “The Gazette.” In order to raise opposition for Cosby and to expose his crimes, the Popular Party decided to print another newspaper. They were searching for a printer and found John Peter Zenger. Zenger was born in Germany, in 1697. At the age of 13, he was brought to New York by his parents and apprenticed to the best printer

Kalven, H., Zeisel, H., Callahan, T., & Ennis, P. (2003). The american jury(Vol. 71). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

These are some examples of why it’s a positive thing that the Constitution has the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that Congress shall not prohibit ”or abridge the freedom...of the press...” (“The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution”). This is important because otherwise, American journalists can end up with the same fate as those living in a country where media censorship is prevalent. However, we maybe be approaching that point. The Committee to Protect Journalists is concerned about “the sharp deterioration of press freedom in the U.S.” which has been linked to Donald Trump’s campaign (Bromwich). One event in particular stands out as an example of this. On Inauguration Day 2017, six journalists were indiscriminately arrested with several protesters. The Metropolitan PD charged the journalists, who were there only to report the scene at the inauguration, with felony rioting, lumping them in with the actual protesters. “[These] actions were seen to contribute to a threatening climate for journalists covering the election,”

not until the twentieth century that the concept of the “press” morphed into professional journalists working in television, radio, publishing companies that conducted and investigated serious stories to deliver to the public. Since then, the courts have struggled to manage the immense role of a free press within the country for it is the emblem of a democratic, civilized and enlightened society. Because journalists generally have access to more information than an average citizen, those with wicked intentions and uninterrupted misdeeds tend to issue subpoenas to fight the journalists from releasing their dirt. However, the First Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law […] prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging

Some may argue that Judges are more likely to reach just outcomes than juries due to perceived bias. However no matter what model is implemented in place of a jury system, the personnel presiding over the case will still be subject to some level of bias. It is part of human nature to show bias, each person’s views is shaped by their own unique upbringings, cultures and experiences.

They have pass many laws for freedom of the press. For example in a 1969 landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students can engage in free speech only if it is lawful and not disruptive. Meaning that the U.S. government has little direct control over what the media print or broadcast. Floyd Adrams says “The worst time for freedom of the press has almost all ways bine during times of war”. People have a tendency to limit speech that is viewed as dangerous but the public understandably becomes nervous, but

The rights of Americans have been tried over and over and no matter the opponent, we have the right to speech and press as long as there isn’t “clear and present danger.” The case of Schenck V. the United States fought that the Espionage Act didn’t grant freedom of speech when he was convicted of “conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.”(www.oyez.org). On March 3, 1919, the courts ruled in favour of the United States to keep the act and withstand the convictions. They strive to prevent evil or dangerous things that could threaten the government or people. (www.britannica.com). A similar case consisted of Yates V. The United

Supreme Court has long respected the freedom of the press when it came to commentaries made on public figures and matters of public interest. Court stressed that such freedom is not absolute and unrestrained. Exercise of this right and other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights comes with equal responsibility, thus, the recognition of a right should not roughshod over the rights of

In today’s society, the freedom of the press seems to be continually challenged. One of

The Trial of John Peter Zenger exemplified this constant struggle in terms of the issue of free press and if governments can really outlaw the people’s voices. This trial was brought on when Zenger, a newspaper publisher in New York, was accused of libel, a word which holds a different meaning now than it did then. During that time period, the word “libel” referred to published information that expressed opposition to the government. In the newspaper, The New York Weekly Journal, Zenger published articles which expressed distaste toward

Experts in the justice system simply define jury nullification when a jury flat-out will not convict a defendant even though the prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did legally break the law (McKnight, 2013). The judicial branch of government has made no precedent in the use of jury nullifications and also the U.S. Constitution makes no reference to this tool (McKnight, 2013). However, the historical use of jury nullification has established its legitimacy (McKnight, 2013). There has been controversy concerning how a jury is made aware of their power to nullify (Freedman, 2014). In 1895, there was a U.S. Supreme Court case Sparf v. United States where the high court stated jury’s could be left in the dark about their ability to nullify even though they had that ability (Freedman, 2014). In this particular case, the judge would not allow the jury to convict a lesser charge of murder to manslaughter. The judge ordered they could only decide