I was struck by the words " to empower the jury"

I was struck by the words " to empower the jury" is to go back to the system that existed.    

Unfortunately, by rule going back to the English law the jury has always been the fact finder and the law determined by the learned judge.   The beauty of the law is that it survives all attempts to turn it into something that it is not.  The English law, which was adopted by most States had one basic object -  FAIRNESS AND EQUITY.

In Equity cases (Chancery) there was no jury - and there still is none.   In Criminal cases there was a jury allowed.   The Executive (law enforcement people) charged the offender with a a crime.   A crime consisted and still consists of elements.   The elements are usually the facts that must exist for the crime to exist.   A burglary for instance required:  1) a breaking of the close;  2) intent to commit a felony therein.  ****.   Each element had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.   If one element was not proven the crime was not proven and the defendant had to be released.   The trier of fact (jury) made the determination.

The jury did not determine ad hoc the crime to be charged, nor did it determine anything other than fact issues.   A general jury verdict did allow the jury to determine the fact as to whether or not all the elements were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.   Ditto in a civil trial.

A judge is quite necessary to ascertain if a jury has done it job and was not rogue.  For instance, in the burglary case if the defendant could not be proven to have had the requisite intent to commit a felony inside when he broke into the premises.   He is not guilty of burglary.   He might be guilty of something else - but not burglary.   The reason that such specificity is required is not to burden the system or create technicalities, but to protect the citizen who is charged with burglary.   He is entitled to know specifically what he is charged with - government is not given a smorgasbord to play with.   

with all due respect, take a look at the grand jury system and you will see just how impractical it is to all juries unfettered power.   

The jury, or the Greek chorus appears to be a rally point for some but, from a practical point no matter how you slice it - success in obtaining reform is going to depend on two elements, to wit:  Practicality and functionality.   We have laws on the books - we need enforcement.   This starts with the people to enforce the law, understanding the law, and understanding the basis for the law.   

In the lawyer disciplinary cases, the lawyer disciplinary board cited the Sawyer case routinely for the proposition that they could punish a lawyer for speaking out against perceived injustice.   Law review after law review cited the case and the case became gospel.

When I read a lawyer disciplinary commission brief trying to justify censorship and an assault on the First Amendment citing the case I pulled the case.    To my astonishment the law review writer and the disciplinary commission lawyers never read the last paragraph of the opinion.   The last paragraph obviated the position of the law review article routinely cited and made the brief a material misrepresent of the law.     In the JoAnne Denison case the Illinois Lawyer Disciplinary Commission failed to read the entire Alvarez case and cited a rejected argument as their authority to abrogate Attorney Denison's First Amendment Rights.   Once again the cardinal sin of misrepresenting the law was exhibited by Mr. Larkin and the IARDC (lawyer disciplinary Commission).   Worse yet, the Supreme Court of Illinois did not take its oath seriously so as the reprimand the attorneys as the IARDC and right the injustice.

The action of the Illinois Supreme Court, the lawyer disciplinary commission et al is CORRUPTION 101   No jury can solve the problem, and if provided the case without instruction as to the law anarchy is the only possible result.    It would be nice to have a unbiased and unwired trier of fact and law, but, here in Illinois unless we get Law Enforcement to do an HONEST INVESTIGATION followed by an HONEST ENFORCEMENT effort Attorney Denison will be a fifth or sixty class citizen.   Here clients will be relegated to the status of the interested parties in re:  Buck vs. Bell or the Dred Scott Decision.  (SCOTHUS decisions) 

   

  

 

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com