Bushel's Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bushel’s Case (1670) is a famous English decision on the role of juries. The case came about from a previous case where two Quakers, William Penn and William Mead, for a charge of unlawful assembly. In August, 1670, the two Quakers were challenging the Conventicle Act, which restricted certain religious practices. The judge had charged the jury that they "shall not be dismissed until we have a verdict that the court will accept." When the jury decided to acquit, the judge was not willing to accept it and sent them back, fining them. Edward Bushel, one of the jurors, refused to pay the fine and so the judge threatened him that "[y]ou shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict, by the help of God, or you shall starve for it." This was not unusual - well into the nineteenth century, jurors were locked up without 'food or fire, water or candle' until they reached a verdict. There are numerous interesting cases in which deliberations went on in this manner for so long that jurors fainted and doctors were summoned. Bushel, the foreman of the jury, took a case to the Court of Common Pleas, where it was established that a jury could not be coerced into giving a particular verdict. This case established unequivocally the independence of the jury. Bushel brought a claim against the Court in the Court of Common Pleas. The Court held that the judge was wrong to override the jury's decision, affirming that the jury cannot be coerced. This is reported by Chief Justice Vaughan in 124 ER 1006 (The English Reports).

[edit] References

Stern, Simon. "Between Local Knowledge and National Politics: Debating Rationales for Jury Nullification after Bushell’s Case," 111 Yale Law Journal 1815 (2002).