PRESENTATION AGENDA
TEAM #3
VASSAR B. CARLTON INN OF COURT
November 13, 2014
CHAPTER 39 OF THE MAGNA CARTA:
A LEGAL BASIS FOR THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL?
1. Arraignment of Benedict Arnold and Edward Snowden (3 min)
a. Judge Moxley, Brian Oneck, Francis Demuro
2. Framing the Issue (1 min)
a. Moderator – Scarlett Davidson
3. Introduction/Explanation of Magna Carta (5 min)
a. First Historian – Mark Peters
4. Dialogue with Moderator – King John and Freeman (6 min)
a. Moderator – Scarlett Davidson
b. King John – Mark Cook
c. Freeman – Kyle Lieneck
5. Dialogue with Moderator – Sir Edward Coke (9 min)
a. Moderator – Scarlett Davidson
b. Sir Edward Coke – Judge Moxley
6. English Bill of Rights (10 min)
a. Second Historian – Scott Blaue
7. Dialogue with Moderator – Thomas Jefferson and King George III (11 min)
a. Moderator – Scarlett Davidson
b. Thomas Jefferson – Brian Oneck
c. King George III – Joe Caruso
8. Stamp Act Resolutions of Oct. 19, 1765;
Resolutions of the First Continental Congress of Oct. 14, 1774;
Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. (9 min)
a. Third Historian – Francis Demuro
9. Discussion of the Law on Right to Jury Trial (2 min)
a. Julie Harrison
b. John Watson
10.Discussion Questions of the Issue – Does the Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta
provide Benedict Arnold and Edward Snowden the right to trial by a jury of
their peers? (2 min)
a. Judge Moxley – Sir Edward Coke
Agenda Item 1 - Arraignment Benedict Arnold and Edward Snowden
Benedict Arnold – July 1, 2015; Charged with Treason under 18 U.S.C. §§2381,
by levying war against the United States of America in Iraq as a platoon leader for
ISIS and engaged Navy Seals of the U.S. Navy and the armed forces of the Iraqi
army and during that engagement Iraqi and American soldiers were killed by
members of the platoon you commanded.
Edward Snowden - July 1, 2015; Charged with Treason under 18 U.S.C. §§2381,
by giving aid to the military forces of ISIS under the command of Benedict Arnold,
by disclosing information classified as State Secrets of the United States of
America, and the disclosure of that information allowed forces of ISIS commanded
by Benedict Arnold to locate and engage in conflict the armed forces of America
and Iraq that resulted in the death of American servicemen.
Agenda Item 2 – Framing the Issue
Framing the Issue
Does Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta constitute the legal basis for the right to jury trial that we
enjoy in the United States?
Two persons BA and Snowden
One has aided and abetted ISIS and the other has given information that has been used by ISIS
Both are being tried for treason
Do they get a jury trial and why?
Assume an American citizen has gone to Iraq and is fighting against Americans – right to be
tried by peers/jury trial?
Agenda Item 3 - Magna Carta History
Agenda Item 4 – Discussion King John and Freeman
King John and Freeman
Moderator: King John, please introduce yourself.
KJ
Moderator: And Freeman, please introduce yourself.
FM
Moderator: King John, how did we get to this point? Where did your problems begin?
Moderator: Freeman, do you agree with King John’s answer? If you have a different viewpoint,
please explain.
FM
Moderator: King John, do you consider your signing of the Magna Carta a surrender?
KJ
Moderator: Freeman, what do you see as the most important element of the Magna Carta?
FM
Moderator: King John, what do you think is the significance of your signing of the Magna Carta
at Runnymede in June 1215?
Freeman: How important do you feel the signing of the Magna Carta was in June of 1215?
Moderator: When the MC was revoked, what effect did it have on you, Freeman?
FM
Moderator: King John, why did you revoke the Magna Carta?
Agenda Item 4 - Discussion King John and Freeman
Agenda Item 6 – English Bill of Rights
1. Magna Carta 1216
a. 1216 – 1225 twice amended
b. 1225 version used by subsequent monarchs.
i. Thereafter the Crown’s courts were forced to adhere to the Magna Carta’s
mandate on juries.
ii. Most people came to believe that juries were to most effective means of:
1. impartially resolving disputes; and
2. protecting individuals from abuses of power
2. In 1355 (during reign of Edward III) Parliament declared that no man could be taken,
imprisoned, put to death without “being brought to answer by due process of law”,
a. an essential part of “due process of law” consisted of his right to trial by jury of his peers
under the Magana Carta
3. In 1487 (Beginning with the reign of Henry VII ) Parliament and the King began a two-hundred
year struggle for power
a. Both sides attempting to use or control juries to their advantage
4. In 1603 (King James I) believed in the divine right of kings
a. Absolute power that extended to silencing the voices of Parliament and the courts
b. James I was opposed by Sir Edward Coke (Cook),
i. believed that James I was crossing the bounds of royal authority by creating
crimes and offenses simply by his proclamation, when these acts were not
previously recognized as an offense by Parliament or common law, and
ii. believed that the king did not possess the right to create special courts, or to
take matters from the courts and decided then himself or by special
commissions
5. In 1625, King Charles I (son of James I)
a. Sir Edward Coke had become leader of Parliament’s opposition to authoritarian policies
b. Parliament had refused to grant funds to Charles I for him to maintain the Thirty Years
War,
i. Thirty Years War (1618-1648, Initially a war between Protestant and Catholic
states in the fragmenting Holy Roman Empire, it gradually developed into a
more general conflict involving most of the great powers of Europe)
c. So Charles directly levied taxes (Forced Loans) on the people; imprisoned those who did
not pay; used martial law to enforce his desires; and forced the billeting of soldiers.
d. In 1628 Parliament passed the Petition of Right, which referenced the Magna Carta, and
enumerated certain rights that where protected from encroachment by the King; such
as
i. Freedom from various forms of martial law, including military trial
ii. Restrictions on non-Parliamentary taxation;
iii. Imprisonment without cause
iv. Trial by jury of peers
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
e. In exchange for funding from Parliament, Charles I agreed to adopt the Petition of Right
However, within a year, Charles dishonored the Petition of Right
a. Began ruling the country through Privy Council and Star Chamber
i. Star Chamber – initially set up to ensure fair enforcement of laws against
prominent people (those so powerful that ordinary courts unlikely to convict of
their crimes
1. Court sessions were held in secret, no indictments, no juries, no
witnesses, all evidence presented in writing
ii. Over time, it evolved into a political weapon, and a symbol of the misuse and
abuse of power by the monarchy
In 1641 Parliament pushed back and dissolved the Court of the Star Chamber by enacting
a. an “Act Abolishing Arbitrary Courts”
b. a “Militia Ordinance” which proposed to transfer power (including power of trial and
punishment) from the Crown to Parliament
Charles I responded by refusing to sign the enactments and disbanding Parliament
Civil War erupts for seven years
a. King Charles I – Roayalists/Cavaliers vs. Oliver Cromwell – Parliamentarians/Roundheads
b. Oliver Cromwell prevails; King Chalres is executed
i. but Cromwell is no fun, strict Puritan Rules (can’t go to theaters or sporting
events, no drinking, etc)
ii. People want to return to a King and the people atians
In 1660, Charles II (son of Charles I) becomes King
a. Charles II attempt to control trials through retaliation against jurors who opposed the
his agenda
i. Famous case of William Penn –
1. real estate entrepreneur, early Quaker, founder of Providence of
Pennsylvania; early advocate of religious freedom.
2. Charged with unlawful assembly (the “Conventicle Act” prohibited
religious assemblies of more than 5 people).
3. Juror refused to convict – Judge held the jury overnight (no food, drink),
held in contempt. Juror Bushel refused to pay the fine, Charles II
imprisoned Bushel
4. Bushel brings Writ Habeas Corpus, before the King’s Bench, he is
acquitted and Chief Judge confirms independence and indispensability
of right to trial by jury.
In 1685, King James II (succeeds his brother, Charles II)
a. James II believes in Divine Right of Kings
b. Tries to create religious liberty for Catholics and non-conforming Protestants, against
the wishes of Parliament
c. Creates a standing army
d. Attempts to retake control of civilian courts and juries by using Military Tribunals.
12. Jame’s II efforts to circumvent the right to trial by jury in civilian courts are one of the grievances
that led to the Glorious Revolution
13. Glorious Revolution
a. In 1689, this bloodless revolution produced the English Bill of Rights
i. Established a Constitutional Monarch (no divine right of kings)
b. William and Mary replaced James II and accepted the Bill of Rights which explicitly
protected the right to trial by jury.
i. No Royal interference with the law, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new
courts or act as judge
ii. No taxation by Royal Prerogative
iii. Freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
iv. No standing army maintained during time of peace
v. No Royal inference in freedom of people to have arms for their own defense
vi. No Royal interference in election of Parliament
vii. Freedom of speech and debate in Parliament
viii. Fines or forfeitures before conviction are void
ix. No excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment
c. To emphasize the importance of both judicial independence and the right to trial by
jury, the “Act of Settlement” was passed by Parliament in 1701 and accepted by William
and Mary.
i. Act of Settlement – provided that judges would no longer serve at the pleasure
of the monarch. This firmly established the right to trial by jury in independent
common-law courts as the center piece of English liberty.
Agenda Item 7 – Discussion King George III and Thomas Jefferson
Moderator: Good evening and welcome. Please introduce yourselves.
KGIII
TJ
BORN 1743
WILLIAM & MARY
MEMBER VA BAR 1767
CHOSEN BY 5 PERSON COMMITTEE TO WRITE DEC. OF IND.—1776—TOOK 17
DAYS TO WRITE
PREZ 1800—2 TERMS
CREATE U OF VA
DIE 7-4-1826
Moderator: We’ve heard the historian speak about the Stamp Act, RGIII, by what were you
motivated to enact/endorse/support it and why the restriction on the right to trial by jury?
KGIII
Moderator: TJ, now that you’ve had to hear what KGIII said, do you believe that it was
successful for the King? What effect did it have on the colonists?
TJ
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION BECAME THE MOTTO OF THE
DAY
ONE OF MANY COMPLANTS FOR US WAS OUR INABILITY TO BE TRIED
BEFORE OUR PEERS IF ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THE STAMP ACT. WE WERE
TRIED IN COURTS OF ADMIRALTY OR VICE ADMIRALTY BEFORE THE KING’S
STOOGE JUDGES.
Moderator: Let’s switch to the Acts that TJ and the other colonists refer to as the “Intolerables.”
TJ, please explain how they got their name, what they are, and if they implicated anyone’s right
to trial.
TJ
AFTER REPEAL OF STAMP ACT THE KING INTRODUCED THE INTOLERABLE
ACTS: BOSTON PORT ACT, ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT, MASS. GOV’T
ACT , QUARTERMAN ACT, AND QUEBEC ACT
FOR PURPOSES OF OUR DISCUSSION I’LL FOCUS ON THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE ACT. G. WASH CALLED THIS THE MURDER’S ACT. IT ALLOWED
THE BRITISH TROOPS WHO WERE KILLING US PATRIOTS AND THEN
CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE MERELY, ON BEHALF OF THE KING, QUELLING
RIOTS TO BE TRIED IN ENGLAND OR ANY COLONY OTHER THAN MASS. AS
SUCH THE CITIZENS OF MASS. WERE DENIED THE RIGHT TO HAVE OFFENSES
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN THEIR COLONY AGAINST
CITIZEN’S OF THEIR COLONY TO BE TRIED IN THEIR COLONY
Moderator: KGIII, what did *you* call the Intolerable Acts? What did you hope to accomplish
with them? Did they have the desired effect?
KGIII
Moderator: Gentlemen, you may recall that William Pitt proclaimed in parliament, “The
Americans are the sons not the bastards of England.” KGIII, discuss whether you thought that
Pitt was right or wrong in his assertion.
KGIII
Moderator: TJ, why did Pitt feel the need to make that statement? Do you feel that he needed to
make the statement?
TJ
GREAT MAN PITT.
WHEN HE WAS IN PARLIAMENT HE WARNED THE KING THAT OUR CLAIM OF
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION WAS JUST. PITT ADVISED THE
KING HE’D MAKE MORE MONEY FOREGOING TAXES AND JUST INCREASE
TRADE WITH US COLONISTS—STUBBORN BASTARD WOULDN’T LISTEN
PITT ADVISED THE KING HIS ACTION WERE CAUSING US COLONISTS TO
CONSIDER REVOLUTION 100 YEARS BEFORE WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
ABOUT IT—STUBBORN BASTARD WOULDN’T LISTEN
Moderator: In April 1775 armed resistance in the colonies began. One of the motivators of the
colonists’ rebellion was that the Magna Carta applied equally to the colonists and the English.
TJ, do you believe that to be the case?
TJ
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW—CORNERSTONE OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE
Moderator: KGIII, what is your position on the MC’s application to colonists during the period
of your rule?
KGIII
Agenda Item 8 – Stamp Act Resolution, Resolutions of 1st Continental Congress,
and Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence. Oh, that silver tongued Thomas Jefferson. Who
among us does not remember the immortal words that he wrote?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed. That whenever
any form of government becomes destructive to
these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their safety and happiness.
But many of us forget the Declaration of Independence goes on to grumble at length
about King George III, in order to justify the right to independence:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a
history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all
having in direct object the establishment of an
absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let
facts be submitted to a candid world.
The Declaration of Independence then sets forth a long list of specific
grievances against the King, and the King’s acquiescence to legislation enacted by
Parliament.
He [the King] has combined with others to subject
us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and
unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to
their [Parliament’s] acts of pretended legislation
[among which were acts of legislation]
…
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of
trial by jury
What was Mr. Jefferson talking about when he complained of these acts?
After the conclusion of the Seven Years’ War (the North American theater of which was
known as the French and Indian War), Parliament and King George III made concerted efforts to
exert greater control over Great Britain’s colonies in America, by, among other things, enforcing
Britain’s trade laws and levying additional taxes in order to defray the costs of providing military
defense to the colonies. In a real sense, these efforts were motivated by the British government’s
need for money.
Writs of Assistance, general search warrants, were granted to British customs inspectors
to search colonial ships for violations of laws governing trade. Violators were tried in British
admiralty courts without the benefit of trial by jury.
The American Revenue Act of 1764, the so called Sugar Act, was intended to curb the
rampant smuggling of sugar and molasses in the colonies by reducing the previous tax rate and
enforcing the collection of duties. The Sugar Act sought to protect British trade by introducing
new trade restrictions and by forcing the American colonists to pay for their protection by British
troops. Specifically, the Sugar Act sought to discourage colonial trade with countries other than
Britain, especially France and Spain (and the French and Spanish colonies in the West Indies),
while increasing revenue to pay British debt.
Violators of the Sugar Act were tried in admiralty (or vice-admiralty) courts where a
judge decided the outcome, rather than in colonial courts in which trial by jury was available. At
least at some point, admiralty courts were located in Halifax, Nova Scotia, while colonial courts
were localized. Admiralty judges were awarded 5% of the confiscated cargo as compensation,
thus providing the financial incentive for vigorous enforcement of the law through guilty
verdicts. To the American colonists, this new system constituted the elimination of the
traditional British protection of a fair trial.
The Stamp Act of 1765, enacted by Parliament and signed by King George III in March,
1765, created an excise tax on newspapers, customs documents, licenses, college diplomas, and
most legal documents. Those who violated the law by failing to pay the required tax were again
subject to trial in admiralty or vice-admiralty courts, in which they were not afforded trial by
jury. Of the Stamp Act, John Adam’s wrote: “The most grievous innovation of all is the
alarming extension of the power of courts of admiralty. One judge presides alone!”
In response the Stamp Act, representatives of nine of the thirteen American colonies sent
delegates to a congress in New York in October, 1765. That congress, known as the Stamp Act
Congress, issued a Declaration of Rights which included the complaint that the Stamp Act and
“several other acts” extended “the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty beyond its ancient
limits” thereby having “a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists.”
Delegates from twelve of the thirteen colonies (all except Georgia) met in Philadelphia,
as the First Continental Congress, in September, 1774. In October of that year, the delegates
2
issued Declarations and Resolves of the First Continental Congress which included the following
language:
That the inhabitants of the English colonies in
North-America, by the immutable laws of nature,
the principles of the English constitution, and the
several charters or compacts, have the following
RIGHTS:
Resolved, N.C.D. 1. That they are entitled to life,
liberty and property: and they have never ceded to
any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of
either without their consent.
Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first
settled these colonies, were at the time of their
emigration from the mother country, entitled to all
the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and
natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.
Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they
by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of
those rights, but that they were, and their
descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and
enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and
other circumstances enable them to exercise and
enjoy.
Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty,
and of all free government, is a right in the people
to participate in their legislative council: and as the
English colonists are not represented, and from their
local and other circumstances, cannot properly be
represented in the British parliament, they are
entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation
in their several provincial legislatures, where their
right of representation can alone be preserved, in all
cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to
the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as
has been heretofore used and accustomed: But, from
the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual
interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to
the operation of such acts of the British parliament,
as are bonfide, restrained to the regulation of our
3
external commerce, for the purpose of securing the
commercial advantages of the whole empire to the
mother country, and the commercial benefits of its
respective members; excluding every idea of
taxation internal or external, for raising a revenue
on the subjects, in America, without their consent.
Resolved, N.C.D. 5. 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.
The deprivation of a right to jury trials was also a major grievance listed in the
Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms which was issued by the Second
Continental Congress on July 6, 1775.
Statutes have been passed for extending the
Jurisdiction of Courts of Admiralty and ViceAdmiralty beyond their ancient Limits; for
depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable
Privilege of Trial by Jury in Cases affecting both
Life and Property
Clearly, the perception of the colonial leaders that the British government had attempted
to restrict or eliminate the right to trial by jury contributed significantly to the tensions that
resulted in the War for Independence.
4
Agenda Item 9 – Discussion of Law
CASE LAW CHEATS
LANDMARK CASES ON THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S.1 (1942)

Facts: Several members of the German military, one possibly being a U.S. citizen, under
disguise of civilian dress, entered the U.S. with orders to destroy war industries and war
facilities.
o Holding: Military tribunals are an appropriate form to resolve military and war issues
involving “enemy belligerents” who violate the laws of war.
o Being under the cloak of civilian dress behind the geographical line of war trying to
do harm to the war effort equates to being an enemy belligerent.
o The U.S. has a long history and current examples of a jury trial not being required.
o “Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from
the consequences of belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of
war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy
government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on
hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention.”
o “We cannot say that Congress in preparing the Fifth and Sixth Amendments intended
to extend trial by jury to the cases of alien or citizen offenders against the law of war
otherwise triable by Military Commission, while withholding it from members of our
own armed forces charged with infractions of articles of war punishable by death.”
o Ex parte Milligan does not apply because it involved a citizen in civilian life
unassociated with military activity
Duncan v. State of Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

Facts: The defendant was denied a jury trial and convicted of simple battery a
misdemeanor, punishable by two years in jail, in Louisiana. Defense appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
o Holding: The right to a jury is a “fundamental principles of liberty and justice which
lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.” Therefore, the constitution
was violated when appellant’s demand for jury trial was refused.
o “The Framers of the Constitution strove to create an independent judiciary but
insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with
the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against
the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased or eccentric
judge. If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of a jury to the more
tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it.”
o “There is no substantial evidence that the Framers intended to depart from this
established common-law practice.” The court recounted the history of the jury trial as
done here tonight.
1
Agenda Item 10 - Discussion Questions:
1. Is Magna Carta part of the law of the state of Florida?
2. What does “judgment of peers” mean in Magna Carta as relates to our fact situation regarding
Edward Snowden and Benedict Arnold?
3. Does it make any difference as to whether the accused is an America citizen? Why, why not?
4. Who are Edward Snowden and Benedict Arnold’s peers in this case? (consider that the
incidents happened in Iraq)
5. Where would the treason trial actually take place?
6. Do Edward Snowden and Benedict Arnold have a right to be tried by their peers in the venue in
which the alleged treason took place?
7. What do the words, “or the law of the land” in chapter 39 of Magna Carta actually mean? (Is it
as clear as the words, “judgment of peers”?)
8. Does Magna Carta have interest in common with the Declaration of Independence and the
United States Constitution?
9. What is Sir Edward Coke’s role in the growth of Magna Carta?
10. Are there things that work in the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Stamp Act
Congress and the Act of the First Continental Congress similar to those at work leading to Magna
Carta?
11. Is Magna Carta important today? (800 years later)
12. Do we have struggles today in the United States like those causing Magna Carta to be written
and sealed by King John on June 15, 1215?
Magna Carta and the Right
to Trial by Jury?
Team 3
November 13, 2014
1215
Chapter 39 – Magna Carta
“No free man shall be seized or
imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or
possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or
deprived of his standing in any other
way, nor will we proceed with force
against him, or send others to do so,
except by the lawful judgment of his
equals or by the law of the land.”
English Bill of Rights 1689
“That jurors ought to be duly
impannelled and returned, and jurors
which pass upon men in trials for
high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines
and forfeitures of particular persons
before conviction are illegal and void.”
The Declaration of Rights of the
Stamp Act Congress
“7th. That trial by jury is the inherent
and invaluable right of every British
subject in these colonies.”
Declaration and Resolves of the
First Continental Congress
“Resolved, N.C.D. 5. 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.”
Declaration of Independence
“For depriving us in many cases, of the
benefits of Trial by Jury.”
Thomas Jefferson
I consider [trial by jury] as the only
anchor…by which a government
can be held to the principles of its
constitution.