909 Sheet – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [403 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

In the case before them, the jury's role is to determine the facts and not to decide whether a statute of the United States is a law or whether it is void based on the opinion that it is unconstitutional, meaning contrary to the Constitution of the United States. I acknowledge that the jury must compare the statute with the facts presented and then decide whether the actions taken are prohibited by the law and whether they constitute the offense described in the indictment. This power is necessarily possessed by the jury to enable them to decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

It is one thing to decide what the law is based on the facts proved, and quite another to determine that the statute presented is not a law. Deciding what the law is based on the facts implies an admission that the law exists. If there is no law in the case, there can be no comparison between it and the facts, and it is unnecessary to establish facts before confirming that there is a law to punish the commission of those acts.

The existence of the law is a preliminary inquiry, and investigating the facts is unnecessary if there is no law to which the facts can apply. By this right to decide what the law is in any case arising under the statute, I cannot conceive that a right is given to the petit jury to determine whether the statute (under which they claim this right) is constitutional or not. To determine the validity of the statute, the Constitution of the United States must necessarily be consulted and considered, and its provisions examined. It must be determined whether the statute alleged to be void, because it is contrary to the Constitution, is prohibited by it expressly or by necessary implication.

Was it ever intended by the framers of the Constitution, or by the people of America, that it should be submitted to a jury to decide what restrictions are expressly or impliedly imposed by it on the national legislature? I cannot possibly believe that Congress intended, by the statute, to grant a right to a petit jury to declare a statute void. The person who maintains this position must have a very low opinion of the understanding of that body; however, I believe the defect lies with the individual making such a claim.