Bushel's Case

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses a dispute concerning the authority of a Court of Common Bench to grant writs of habeas corpus to persons not holding privilege within the Court, and the legality of fining jurors for their verdicts. The case arose after jurors in London were fined and imprisoned for acquitting prisoners contrary to the apparent evidence and the statute. The procedural history involves the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, its return by the Sheriff of London with cause, and arguments before the Court regarding the sufficiency and legality of the cause for imprisonment and fining of jurors.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court of Common Bench has the power to grant writs of habeas corpus for persons not privileged within the Court.
2. Whether jurors can be fined for delivering a verdict according to their conscience, especially if it acquits prisoners despite the evidence.
3. The sufficiency of the cause returned for the imprisonment of the jurors and the legality of the fines imposed.
4. The applicability and limits of attaint and writs of error concerning jurors' verdicts and fines.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Representing the Jurors)

• The Court of Common Bench lacks power to grant habeas corpus writs except in cases involving privilege or excess of jurisdiction by an inferior court.
• Fining jurors for their verdicts is improper because a verdict is a judicial act given according to their conscience; jurors cannot be punished for their verdict.
• The cause returned for imprisonment lacks certainty and fails to specify the legal matter justifying the fine or imprisonment.
• There is no precedent supporting the imposition of fines on jurors for verdicts at common law, and attaint lies only in limited cases, not here.
• The jury's oath obliges them to their own judgment, and a verdict contrary to their conscience is perjury.

Appellee's Arguments (Representing the Court and the State)

• The Court of Common Bench may grant habeas corpus writs when there is a probable cause to deliver the party, including cases involving privilege or excess of jurisdiction.
• The fine imposed was a judgment of a Court of Record and should only be defeated by writ of error, not by habeas corpus.
• Jurors may be fined for manifest misconduct or corrupt acquittal, supporting the imposition of fines as a penalty.
• The cause returned by the Sheriff was sufficient to justify the imprisonment and fine, as it stated the jurors acquitted prisoners contrary to evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Anderson part 1, 297-298; 2 Inst. 615; Moor hpl. 839, 1132	Authority that Courts may grant habeas corpus writs under certain conditions	Supported the proposition that the Court may grant the writ if there is probable cause
Bracton 288; Flet. b. 336, n. 9	Jurors may be fined for misconduct but not for verdict given according to conscience	Used to argue that jurors cannot be fined for their honest verdicts
Dyer 201; Dyer 304	Distinction between naturalization and allegiance; also legal principles on attaint and jury verdicts	Referenced in discussion on limits of legal fiction and jury accountability
Co. Mag. Chart. 55	Power of the Court to deliver prisoners without quashing orders	Supported the Court's authority to discharge the prisoner by judgment
42 E. 3, f. ult.; 7 13. 4, f. 40	Rules on attaint and fines for jurors	Discussed in relation to whether attaint lies and fines can be imposed
21 H. 6, 20; 34 H. 6, 15; 9 H. 6, 58; 9 E. 4, 47	Cases on habeas corpus and discharge of prisoners	Used to support the Court's judgment to discharge the prisoner
Bract. 288; Hob. 237; Cro. Eliz. 416	Jury obligations and consequences of perjury or misconduct	Referenced to clarify jurors' duties and limits on punishment

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed whether it possessed the jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in favor of persons not privileged within the Court. It concluded that such writs are not granted as a matter of course but only upon probable cause, privilege, or excess of jurisdiction by an inferior court. The Court examined the sufficiency of the cause returned by the Sheriff, noting that the return must be certain and specify the legal basis for imprisonment or fine. The Court found that the return stating the jurors were fined and imprisoned for acquitting prisoners contrary to evidence was sufficient.

Regarding the fining of jurors, the Court distinguished between a verdict given according to conscience—which cannot be punished—and manifest misconduct or corrupt acquittal, which may justify fines. The Court noted that attaint lies only in limited circumstances and not generally for jurors' verdicts, but fines may still be imposed without attaint. The Court emphasized the jurors' oath obliges them to their own judgment, and a verdict contrary to that judgment constitutes perjury.

Ultimately, the Court balanced the necessity of protecting the integrity of juries and the rights of prisoners, affirming the power to impose fines on jurors for misconduct while maintaining the procedural safeguards of habeas corpus and the requirement of sufficient cause for imprisonment.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED the writ of habeas corpus, ordering the discharge of the imprisoned jurors.

The decision directly affected the parties by releasing the jurors held for their verdicts and fines. It clarified the limited circumstances under which the Court of Common Bench may grant habeas corpus writs and the legal boundaries concerning fining jurors for their verdicts. No new precedent was set beyond affirming existing principles regarding habeas corpus jurisdiction and juror accountability.