Robert H. Jackson Quotes

Juries are not qualified to judge questions of law, but they are very capable of judging questions of fact.

The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence … and the courts must abide by that decision.

The juries [are] our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it.

It is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.

The judge weighs the arguments and puts a brave face on the matter, and since there must be a decision, decides as he can, and hopes he has done justice and given satisfaction to the community

The role of the judge is simply to decide cases.

Jurors have found, again and again, and at critical moments, according to what is their sense of the rational and just. If their sense of justice has gone one way, and the case another, they have found "against the evidence," ... the English common law rests upon a bargain between the Law and the people: The jury box is where the people come into the court: The judge watches them and the people watch back. A jury is the place where the bargain is struck. The jury attends in judgment, not only upon the accused, but also upon the justice and the humanity of the Law.

To be a judge you don't have to know about books, you have to be skilled at picking shrapnel out of your head.

In our system, we leave questions of fact to a jury. But to render a verdict, a jury must know the law. For this, we rely upon jury instructions. Instructions are supposed to translate the law into lay terms that the jury can apply to the facts as they determine them.

I got put on jury duty, which is where I learned how to write.

The trial by jury might safely be introduced into a despotic government, if the jury were to exercise no right of judging of the law, or the justice of the law.

I have great faith in the jury system.

When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before, may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind.

For every criminal case, the judge must construct a perfect syllogism: the major premise must be the general law; the minor premise, whether or not the action in question is in compliance with the law; and the conclusion, acquittal or punishment.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence.

It is the merit of the common law that it decides the case first and determines the principles afterward.

The jury has … the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction ... if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong

Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained.

It is very important to know the law, but it is more important to know the judge

Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.

The law has to be, in part, a teacher.

We don't pay judges to think; we pay judges to rule on the law.