Part 4c: JFR Trial ... Criticizing the Government
Trial Transcript, page 135 - 137 Sect. 405 – 411
COURT to jurors: In the trial of this case the questions of fact are for you to decide. Questions of law are for the Court to decide. Would you take the law of the case as given you by the Court and follow instructions and directions of the Court, regardless of your own opinions what the law is or should be? I might say, if the Court makes a mistake in its rulings on the law, the defendants have the right to take exception, take the case to a higher court, and have the error corrected. If you should take your own views of the law as your guide there would be no way an error you might make could be corrected, so the rights of the party is saved by a right of appeal if the Court makes a mistake on the law, and it becomes manifestly your duty to follow the law as given by the Court. Would you all do that?
(Several affirmative answers come from the jury box.) Note: The judge is obviously trying very hard to continue to preserve the rights of the defense, both in earlier comments to help Mr. Sparks, and in its comments to the Jury.
COURT to Sparks: Isn’t that sufficient?
Sparks to the Court: It is in a way, but I want to know whether any juror has an opinion as to the right of an individual to criticize the Government for its action in going into the war?
COURT: How is that liable to become material in this case? They are not charged with criticizing the Government. They are indicted for attempting to cause insubordination, obstructing the recruiting service, etc., not for criticizing the Government.
Sparks to the Court: That is so closely connected with the Draft Act and the entry in the war –
COURT: I don’t think so.
Sparks to jurors: Do you think a person has a right to criticize the Government for passing what is commonly known as the Selective Service law?
COURT to Sparks: On that question you take the law from the Court. They say they would take the law from the Court on all these questions, why should we interrogate them on their views?
Sparks to the Court: I am trying to find out if the gentlemen in the box have any opinion as to whether a person has the right to criticize because some of th4e articles the Government will introduce in evidence here they will try to construe as a criticism of the Government in passing the Draft Act. I have a right to know whether any of these gentlemen believe we have that right.
COURT: You want to turn the jurymen into lawyers then. Suppose they have that opinion?
Sparks: I want to know it then, so I may examine further, and possibly use some challenges on the question; that is the object of my questions.
COURT: Well, this is a new way of finding out if men will make good jurymen to me. It is strange if they hadn’t some notions of their own as to these various things.
Sparks: May I ask to have the questions answered?
COURT: Do you contend there is any law in the land that prevents criticism of the Government?
Sparks to the Court: I say there isn’t. Of course, I say there isn’t. I want to find out from these jurors whether they think it is wrong for a person to stand up and criticize the Government in such times.
COURT to Sparks: If there is nothing shown against these defendants except criticizing the Government, the Court will discharge them, and order a verdict of not guilty. How is that material? If there is no evidence to show they committed the offense charged the Court will order them discharged.
Sparks to the Court: I take an exception, and will pass on to something else.
Clearly, the Court is being very fair, and is still allowing Mr. Sparks to question the prospective jurors. The next installment will deal with this more ... and get to the surprise I noted ... and be that last on the Jury Selection issues ... following that I will get into the cross examination phase. ... to be continued ...