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.”