Levy skillfully traces the development of trial by jury.

This magisterial book explores fascinating cases from American history to show how juries remain the heart of our system of criminal justice - and an essential element of our democracy. No other institution of government rivals the jury in placing power so directly in the hands of citizens. Jeffrey Abramson draws upon his own background as both a lawyer and a political theorist to capture the full democratic drama that is the jury. We, the Jury is a rare work of scholarship that brings the history of the jury alive and shows the origins of many of today's dilemmas surrounding juries and justice.

Trial by jury is the mainstay of the accusatorial system of criminal justice. Here one of our most distinguished constitutional scholars, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Leonard Levy, brings his formidable skills to bear in tracing the development of what many great legal minds have called the Palladium of Justice. Recounting this history with his characteristic clarity, vigor, and elegance of expression, Mr. Levy has given us a brilliant and useful summary of one of our most cherished freedoms. Incisively, thoroughly, and thoughtfully as always-Leonard Levy offers historical meaning and understanding to one of our most basic rights. Stanley I. Kutler

Twelve Good Men and True brings together some of the most ambitious and innovative work yet undertaken on the history of an English legal institution. These eleven essays examine the composition of the criminal trial jury in England, the behavior of those who sat as jurors, and popular and official attitudes toward the institution of jury trial from its almost accidental emergence in the early thirteenth century until 1800. The essays have important implications for three problems central to the history of criminal justice administration in England: the way in which the medieval jury was informed and reached its verdict; the degree and form of independence enjoyed by juries during the early modern period when the powers of the bench were very great; and the role of the eighteenth-century trial jury, which, although clearly independent, was, by virtue of the status and experience of its members, arguably a mere extension of the bench. This extensive collection marks the first occasion on which scholars working in several different time periods have focused their attention on the history of a single legal institution. Written by J. M. Beattie, J. S. Cockburn, Thomas A. Green, Roger D. Groot, Douglas Hay, P.J.R. King, P. G. Lawson, Bernard William McLane, J. B. Post, Edward Powell, and Stephen K. Roberts, the essays utilize sophisticated techniques to establish from a variety of manuscript sources the wealth, status, and administrative experience of jurors. Originally published in 1988. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Origins probes the intentions of the framers of the Fifth Amendment.

Satisfactory evidence, though not all the evidence, of what the Common Law trial by jury really is'

The Supreme Court against the Criminal Jury: Social Science and the Palladium of Liberty is an analysis of the United States Supreme Court decisions in what has come to be called the “jury-size” and “jury-decision rule” cases. In Williams v. Florida (1970) and Ballew v. Georgia (1978), a majority of the Supreme Court looked to history, empirical studies, and functional analysis to support its claim that there was “no discernible difference” between the verdicts of juries of six and juries of twelve. In the process the Court also decided that the number twelve was an historical accident and that the twelve-member jury was not an essential ingredient of trial by jury. Two years later, the Court, following essentially the same line of reasoning used in Williams, decided in the companion cases Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) and Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) that defendants were as well served with juries that reached verdicts by a majority vote of 11-1,10-2 and 9-3 as they were with unanimous jury verdicts. In these cases the Supreme Court rejected the centuries old common law view that the unanimous jury verdict was an essential element of trial by jury. With these four decisions, the criminal jury as it had been known for more than six hundred years under the common law and the Constitution was in principle abandoned. We critique these decisions from the perspective of unreliable jury studies and the impact of these decision on jury nullification.