From where did the phrase "jury of your peers" originate?

[lawbuff]

@Stringer

So, my question naturally follows: from where did this phrase originate? Googling has provided more ignorance than answers, so I turn to the teeming millions.

A trial by Jury in the district where it happened is known as the Vicinage Clause, and this addresses some origins of Peers.

Now, I do know from past research this clause has never been incorpoarted to apply to the states by the US SC, however, it is still used by all states.
First Continental Congress adopted on October 14, 1774, resolved:
That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.[11]

Vicinage Clause

[blindboyard]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

[geekier than thou] I think not. Bishops are considered lords, or at least the higher ones are, hence the term ‘ecclesiastical lords’.

[/gtt].

They are the Lords Spiritual and Temporal.

Time Lords?

Obviously the first juries functioned more like American Grand Juries, being designed to detect crimes and report them when the judge came to town, although they were twelve men in size. The UK long ago got rid of Grand Juries.

[blindboyard]

@D18

Didn’t Charles I argue that his trial was illegitimate. Because of the principal of jury of your peers, he could only be found guilty by a jury of other monarchs?

No, he said he WAS the Law, and therefore couldn’t commit a crime or be tried. The monarch being the head of the nation and font of the law. While nowadays the Queen pays taxes on her handouts.

[themadride]

“in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” -6th Amendment.

Someone who is a non-citizen, BY DEFINITION, is a visitor. They are OF somewhere else. Or are we going to let people on vacation to Disneyland pop in and be jurors as well?

[Jonathan_Chance]

Translated 40 years or so ago in the US as “If the President does it, it can’t be a crime.”

[Cliffy]

@themadride

Someone who is a non-citizen, BY DEFINITION, is a visitor.

That’s not correct. Citizens are citizens, but that is only a subset of people domiciled in a place. In many countries, jus solis citizenship doesn’t exist, and people can be born, live, and die in a place in which they have no citizenship. We have that here too – there are various classes of legal immigrants, including those of permanent residence.

–Cliffy

[alphaboi867]

@Jonathan_Chance

Translated 40 years or so ago in the US as “If the President does it, it can’t be a crime.”

Except unlike the British monarch the President of the US is not a sovereign, prosecutions aren’t carried out in his name, and neither do judges don’t issue rulings in his name.

[Derleth]

@blindboyard

No, he said he WAS the Law

He was Sylvester Stallone?

[Blake]

@Roches

(Men in medieval villages were organized into groups of 12 that were mutually responsible for crimes, so a criminal not only hurt himself but 11 of his friends.)

I’ve never heard of this before. Can you provide a source?

[naita]

@Blake

I’ve never heard of this before. Can you provide a source?

Since Roches posted that claim in 2004 and last posted anything at all in 2005 I think a cite will not be forthcoming.

[Blake]

Bloody zombies.

[Martin_Hyde]

@APB

Except that, in practice, there was no overlap between the jurisdictions of the House of Lords and Star Chamber. A peer’s right to trial by the House of Lords (or the Court of the Lord High Steward) applied only in treason and felony cases. The Court of Star Chamber, in contrast, did not hear treason or felony cases, whatever the rank of the defendant. (Whether it could have heard felony cases was never entirely clear, but this made no real difference - Star Chamber could not impose the death penalty or confiscate property, so it always made more sense to prosecute such cases at common law.)

Interesting, that’s never how I understood it. It was my understanding as Star Chamber developed it did try felonies and treason and that its jurisdiction became essentially unlimited. A very old source, but the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica says this about it:

The jurisdiction of the star chamber was as vague as its constitution. Hudson says it is impossible to define it without offending the supporters of the prerogative by a limitation of its powers, or the lawyers by attributing to it an excessive latitude. In practice its jurisdiction was almost unlimited.

It took notice of riots, murder, forgery, felony, perjury, fraud, libel and slander, duels and acts tending to treason, as well as of some civil matters, such as disputes about land between great men and corporations, disputes between English and foreign merchants, and testamentary cases; in fact, as Hudson says, “all offences may be here examined and punished if the king will.” Its procedure was not according to the common law. It dispensed with the encumbrance of a jury; it could proceed on rumour alone; it could apply torture; it could inflict any penalty but death. It was thus admirably calculated to be the support of order against anarchy, or of despotism against individual and national liberty. During the Tudor period it appeared in the former light, under the Stuarts in the latter. Under the Tudors, as S. R. Gardiner says, it was “a tribunal constantly resorted to as a resource against the ignorance or prejudices of a country jury,” and adds that “in such investigations it showed itself intelligent and impartial.” Under James I. and Charles I. all this was changed; the star chamber became the great engine of the royal tyranny. Hateful and excessive punishments were inflicted on those brought before the court, notable among whom were Prynne, Bastwick and Burton, and the odium which it gathered around it was one of the causes which led to the popular discontent against Charles I. As it became more unpopular its jurisdiction was occasionally questioned. An example of this kind occurred in 1629, but the barons of the exchequer who heard the case declared that the star chamber was created many years before the statute of Henry VII. and that it was “one of the most high and honourable courts of justice.” It was abolished by an act of parliament of July 1641. In 1661 a committee of the House of Lords reported “that it was fit for the good of the nation that there be a court of like nature to the star chamber”; but nothing further was done in the matter.

[Martin_Hyde]

@D18

Didn’t Charles I argue that his trial was illegitimate. Because of the principal of jury of your peers, he could only be found guilty by a jury of other monarchs?

I’m no expert on Renaissance era English law, but based on histories I’ve read of the time of Charles I and his trial I actually think under law at the time he arguably had a case in this regard. But in practice Charles was falling afoul of an ancient tradition in England as old as any of the common law, that of the “power of conquest.” It’s why William I, Stephen, Henry VII etc were King…Charles I was defeated in a war and Parliament was following a type of tradition (if not a legal one) in removing his head and his crown.

[APB]

@Martin_Hyde

Interesting, that’s never how I understood it. It was my understanding as Star Chamber developed it did try felonies and treason and that its jurisdiction became essentially unlimited. A very old source, but the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica says this about it:

Which simply illustrates the dangers of using old sources. Much of what used to be thought about Star Chamber was thoroughly debunked several decades ago, mostly by John Guy and Geoffrey Elton. On this specific point, see, for example, Elton, The Tudor Constitution (Cambridge University Press, revised edition, 1982), p. 173.

[mbh]

@Roches

Medieval juries were more literally a jury of one’s peers than juries are today. Each year, a few jurors would be selected, and they would preside over all the trials in that year. The juries were members of one’s community; they were one’s neighbors, and of a similar social class. Giles is right that a commoner would be tried by a jury of commoners, but no further distinction would be made. A freeman, for example, would not necessarily be tried by a jury of freemen, and a villein (a person who owned no land) would not be tried exclusively by villeins.

One of the ideas, I think, that juries were made up of one’s neighbors is that medieval English law values the idea of self-policing communities. One might be less likely to commit a crime if they knew they would have to answer for it in front of their neighbors. (Men in medieval villages were organized into groups of 12 that were mutually responsible for crimes, so a criminal not only hurt himself but 11 of his friends.) The later idea that juries should have no prior knowledge of the case did not exist in the medieval era. Medieval villages were close-knit communities, and it would have been very difficult to find someone who hadn’t heard about how John of Bath stole a chicken from William the Smith.

@Blake

I’ve never heard of this before. Can you provide a source?

Tithing

Frankpledge

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

[geekier than thou] I think not. Bishops are considered lords, or at least the higher ones are, hence the term ‘ecclesiastical lords’.

[/gtt].

Nine-year-old nitpick: only some bishoprics confer membership in the Lords Spiritual.

[naita]

@mbh

Tithing - Wikipedia

Frankpledge - Wikipedia

Interesting system, but I think Roches misrepresented it and I don’t think it’s related to the development of juries.