In part because of the Zenger trial in 1735, the freedoms of colonists who would later become citizens of an individual nation, The United States of America, were extended in various ways. This landmark case provided paving stones for two amendments listed in the Bill of Rights and is also featured in countless legal texts.
Andrew Hamilton was the first attorney to trade the “he’s innocent because he didn’t do it” plea for the “he’s innocent because the law itself is wrong” defense. It is because of this landmark case that defendants can claim to be not guilty, not on the terms that the crime was not committed, but on the terms that it should not even be considered a crime.
The right to trial by jury, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, was helped along by the Zenger case as well. The abuse of the court system, not to mention the creation and use of what should have been illegitimate courts, by government officials in order to manipulate the law was highlighted by Governor Cosby’s actions. Had trial by jury been an established right in 1733, Cosby’s power would not have been so concrete as he most certainly would have lost his suit against Van Dam.
The additional clause backing up the freedom of the press to report even negative truths, by way of the First Amendment, can also be traced back to the Zenger case. The loss of the government to a common man was all the nudge society needed to realize a fair trial by peers is a right worth fighting for.
Additionally, in the field of journalism in the 21st century, key points established by the Zenger case are still relevant. The operation of the press as a watchdog in public affairs helps to serve as a check on government and ensures that the public indeed has the right to be informed. Also, in recent years journalists have come to the conclusion that complete “objectivity,” the telling of news without any bias, is an unrealistic expectation. The new outlook is that “truth” is the way to go. Though this may seem like a new revelation in classroom journalism, it is not. In 1735 it served as Zenger’s sole defense against tyranny.
John Peter Zenger and Case Details
John Peter Zenger himself was not always so wrapped up in the politics of his newspaper. Before this case, the New York Weekly Journal was known for being political, but Zenger was generally indifferent, his work and personal lives fairly separate. Zenger saw writing for the Journal simply as a paycheck, and had no idea that he would one day be an important figure in journalism’s history. He had just taken over the Journal in November 1734 and had only published two months of the paper when he became a target of the government after printing various articles criticizing Governor Cosby’s abuse of public resources and overall lack of care regarding the plight of the colonists.
The initial reaction of the government came through a rival New York newspaper, The Gazette, which countered every negative statement printed in the Journal. The insistence that Zenger was distributing text of aggravated libel was backed by this newspaper, which received favor from Cosby. The Gazette published numerous articles, of which Zenger and the Journal were the topic, in attempt to have “the name ‘Zenger’ be turned into a common-noun synonym for ‘liar.’”
With the lower level smearing of Zenger’s credibility failing, the situation escalated when government officials began a formal investigation, encouraging colonists to report any libelous printings they witnessed. The officials got involved because Zenger’s claims not only damaged their reputations because they did dirty business with Cosby, but also threatened to damage their income from said business. The colonists, however, would not work against Zenger because he represented the common man’s issues with the existing order. Having made no progress, Cosby took it upon himself to bring suit against Zenger for “seditious libel” in April 1735.
Once again, Cosby handpicked the judges that were to hear the case of The Attorney General v. John Peter Zenger. Zenger’s first two lawyers made the claim that the Governor and Court were biased in the case and that this would prove the proceedings to be invalid. For this, they were both not only removed from the case, but also disbarred. Andrew Hamilton, a lawyer from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, replaced the pair as Zenger’s attorney, free of charge. He realized the futility of arguing with the Court and instead made the argument that the law of libel, as it stood, was unconstitutional and on that basis, Zenger should be found not guilty. The jury of Zenger’s peers, the only aspect that could not be fully controlled by Cosby, was not even sure that they could consider such a defense. Never before had the idea been presented that an illegal action was confessed to have been committed, but still did not make the defendant a criminal.
In spite of being instructed by the judges to disregard Hamilton’s defense and find Zenger guilty, the jury tested their power by way of exonerating Zenger, resulting in the first case of jury nullification.
The case of John Peter Zenger did not only become a cornerstone of the First Amendment, but also helped lay the foundation for the possibility of jury nullification. Also, this was “one of the first cases in which the defense admitted performing the acts charged but argued that the law under which the prosecution had been brought was itself unconstitutional.”
The initial reaction of the government came through a rival New York newspaper, The Gazette, which countered every negative statement printed in the Journal. The insistence that Zenger was distributing text of aggravated libel was backed by this newspaper, which received favor from Cosby. The Gazette published numerous articles, of which Zenger and the Journal were the topic, in attempt to have “the name ‘Zenger’ be turned into a common-noun synonym for ‘liar.’”
With the lower level smearing of Zenger’s credibility failing, the situation escalated when government officials began a formal investigation, encouraging colonists to report any libelous printings they witnessed. The officials got involved because Zenger’s claims not only damaged their reputations because they did dirty business with Cosby, but also threatened to damage their income from said business. The colonists, however, would not work against Zenger because he represented the common man’s issues with the existing order. Having made no progress, Cosby took it upon himself to bring suit against Zenger for “seditious libel” in April 1735.
Once again, Cosby handpicked the judges that were to hear the case of The Attorney General v. John Peter Zenger. Zenger’s first two lawyers made the claim that the Governor and Court were biased in the case and that this would prove the proceedings to be invalid. For this, they were both not only removed from the case, but also disbarred. Andrew Hamilton, a lawyer from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, replaced the pair as Zenger’s attorney, free of charge. He realized the futility of arguing with the Court and instead made the argument that the law of libel, as it stood, was unconstitutional and on that basis, Zenger should be found not guilty. The jury of Zenger’s peers, the only aspect that could not be fully controlled by Cosby, was not even sure that they could consider such a defense. Never before had the idea been presented that an illegal action was confessed to have been committed, but still did not make the defendant a criminal.
In spite of being instructed by the judges to disregard Hamilton’s defense and find Zenger guilty, the jury tested their power by way of exonerating Zenger, resulting in the first case of jury nullification.
The case of John Peter Zenger did not only become a cornerstone of the First Amendment, but also helped lay the foundation for the possibility of jury nullification. Also, this was “one of the first cases in which the defense admitted performing the acts charged but argued that the law under which the prosecution had been brought was itself unconstitutional.”
Libel: Understanding the Term
Libel is defined as “a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression.” When directed against the government this charge, legally termed seditious libel, was a serious one amongst nations with a sovereign ruler. England and its colonies were no exception. In regards to 18th century government, it was considered a “sacred institution… thro’ which the Blessings intended by it flow to the Society…; and to speak irreverently and disrespectfully of Magistrates and Government… was and is, always will be, criminal in the Sight of God and Man.”
The mind frame of the time was reflective of past notions that a monarch ruled by divine right, meaning by the grace of God. It then followed the idea that a sovereign was all-powerful and to keep his/her subjects from questioning or criticizing the government that (s)he commanded was of the utmost importance. Also, to comprehend the Zenger case, it must be understood that “libel” as defined today did not have the same meaning in the 1730s. Libel in a newspaper was considered to be anything printed which contained damaging information or painted an unfavorable picture of someone. This “someone” tended to be of financial or political significance, therefore having the influence necessary to punish those bold enough to print negative claims about them. The difference being, there was no distinction between printing facts that damaged this person’s image or printing lies or conjecture that caused damage. The act of smearing was enough to be criminally prosecuted. This case changed that.
The mind frame of the time was reflective of past notions that a monarch ruled by divine right, meaning by the grace of God. It then followed the idea that a sovereign was all-powerful and to keep his/her subjects from questioning or criticizing the government that (s)he commanded was of the utmost importance. Also, to comprehend the Zenger case, it must be understood that “libel” as defined today did not have the same meaning in the 1730s. Libel in a newspaper was considered to be anything printed which contained damaging information or painted an unfavorable picture of someone. This “someone” tended to be of financial or political significance, therefore having the influence necessary to punish those bold enough to print negative claims about them. The difference being, there was no distinction between printing facts that damaged this person’s image or printing lies or conjecture that caused damage. The act of smearing was enough to be criminally prosecuted. This case changed that.
Fueling the Fire...
The history and background surrounding the case of John Peter Zenger paints a picture of some of the trials endured by the colonies of America.
William Cosby, under the authority of the King of England George II, of the House of Hanover, arrived amidst a politically unsettled New York in August 1732 to fill the role of governor. Having fallen on hard times in England, his foremost concern upon becoming governor was figuring out how to restore his own fortune.
Censorship of the press was heavily practiced by the elite in England as a result of the religious, among other political, tensions and conflicts. Everyone involved in literature thought to encourage resistance against the state, whether reader, writer, or publisher, was vulnerable to prosecution. English law did not provide for “truth” to be a defense to libel, therefore this defense having not only been used, but been successful, in the Zenger case helped to set various precedents in the American legal system as it is today. In addition to legitimizing truth as a valid defense to libel, the trial of John Peter Zenger is one of the cases that has led to the establishment of the First Amendment, in particular, prohibiting the government from impeding on the freedom of the press. The circumstances surrounding the trial also helped to stress the importance of trial by jury, which is later established in the Sixth Amendment, due to the new possibility of jury nullification, and fueled the fire between the colonists and their given, not chosen, leaders.
Existing tensions between colonists and government officials did not dissuade Cosby exploiting his position for personal gain by selling public, provincial offices under his control. This practice went without serious protest for the first three years that Cosby held office because he pacified the powerful by lining their pockets with the ill-gotten money as well. Those that did not hold enough influence to be a threat to Cosby did not share the spoils, but were kept in check by the fear of his retaliation should they dare openly oppose him.
Upon initially arriving at his post in New York, Cosby was supposed to receive a sum of money from another executive official named Rip Van Dam. Van Dam refused to pay this money because he did not think it was fair that Cosby had received other sums of money prior to leaving England and still felt entitled to take half of Van Dam’s salary. Van Dam suggested that he and Cosby compromise, offering to give Cosby half of his salary in exchange for half of the sum Cosby had been paid in England to take the governorship in New York. Van Dam estimated that he would be giving Cosby £6407 while only receiving £1975. Even so, Cosby refused, wanting it all, and being at a standstill with Van Dam, he created an entire court from scratch, the Court of Exchequer, for the sole purpose of suing Van Dam for the money in 1733. Cosby could not use the Supreme Court of New York because he was positive the jury of Van Dam’s countrymen would not rule in his favor. Cosby handpicked the three judges to serve in the new court, guaranteeing he would win the case. This first impression on how he intended to abuse his power, in addition to run-ins with other influential members of the society throughout his rule, further alienated the government of New York from its colonists.
William Cosby, under the authority of the King of England George II, of the House of Hanover, arrived amidst a politically unsettled New York in August 1732 to fill the role of governor. Having fallen on hard times in England, his foremost concern upon becoming governor was figuring out how to restore his own fortune.
Censorship of the press was heavily practiced by the elite in England as a result of the religious, among other political, tensions and conflicts. Everyone involved in literature thought to encourage resistance against the state, whether reader, writer, or publisher, was vulnerable to prosecution. English law did not provide for “truth” to be a defense to libel, therefore this defense having not only been used, but been successful, in the Zenger case helped to set various precedents in the American legal system as it is today. In addition to legitimizing truth as a valid defense to libel, the trial of John Peter Zenger is one of the cases that has led to the establishment of the First Amendment, in particular, prohibiting the government from impeding on the freedom of the press. The circumstances surrounding the trial also helped to stress the importance of trial by jury, which is later established in the Sixth Amendment, due to the new possibility of jury nullification, and fueled the fire between the colonists and their given, not chosen, leaders.
Existing tensions between colonists and government officials did not dissuade Cosby exploiting his position for personal gain by selling public, provincial offices under his control. This practice went without serious protest for the first three years that Cosby held office because he pacified the powerful by lining their pockets with the ill-gotten money as well. Those that did not hold enough influence to be a threat to Cosby did not share the spoils, but were kept in check by the fear of his retaliation should they dare openly oppose him.
Upon initially arriving at his post in New York, Cosby was supposed to receive a sum of money from another executive official named Rip Van Dam. Van Dam refused to pay this money because he did not think it was fair that Cosby had received other sums of money prior to leaving England and still felt entitled to take half of Van Dam’s salary. Van Dam suggested that he and Cosby compromise, offering to give Cosby half of his salary in exchange for half of the sum Cosby had been paid in England to take the governorship in New York. Van Dam estimated that he would be giving Cosby £6407 while only receiving £1975. Even so, Cosby refused, wanting it all, and being at a standstill with Van Dam, he created an entire court from scratch, the Court of Exchequer, for the sole purpose of suing Van Dam for the money in 1733. Cosby could not use the Supreme Court of New York because he was positive the jury of Van Dam’s countrymen would not rule in his favor. Cosby handpicked the three judges to serve in the new court, guaranteeing he would win the case. This first impression on how he intended to abuse his power, in addition to run-ins with other influential members of the society throughout his rule, further alienated the government of New York from its colonists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)