Fourth—­That the jury have a right to find a general verdict of guilty or not guilty, as they shall believe that she has or has not been guilty of the offense described in the statute.

The Court declined to submit the case to the jury upon any question whatever, and directed them to render a verdict of guilty against the defendant.

The defendant’s counsel excepted to the decision of the Court upon the legal questions to its refusal to submit the case to the jury:  to its refusal to give the instructions asked; and to its direction to the jury to find a verdict of guilty against the defendant—­the counsel insisting that it was a direction which no Court had a right to give in a criminal case.

The Court then instructed the clerk to take the verdict, and the clerk said, “Gentlemen of the jury, hearken to the verdict as the Court hath recorded it.  You say you find the defendant guilty of the offence charged.  So say you all.”

No response whatever was made by the jury, either by word or sign.  They had not consulted together in their seats or otherwise.  Neither of them had spoken a word.  Nor had they been asked whether they had or had not agreed upon a verdict.

The defendant’s counsel then asked that the clerk be requested to poll the jury.  The Court said, “that cannot be allowed.  Gentlemen of the jury, you are discharged,” and the jurors left the box.  No juror spoke a word during the trial, from the time they were impanelled to the time of their discharge.

Now I respectfully submit, that in these proceedings the defendant has been substantially denied her constitutional right of trial by jury.  The jurors composing the panel have been merely silent spectators of the conviction of the defendant by the Court.  They have had no more share in her trial and conviction than any other twelve members of the jury summoned to attend this Court, or any twelve spectators who have sat by during the trial.  If such course is allowable in this case, it must be equally allowable in all criminal cases, whether the charge be for treason, murder or any minor grade of offence which can come under the jurisdiction of a United States court; and as I understand it, if correct, substantially abolishes the right of trial by jury.

It certainly does so in all those cases, where the judge shall be of the opinion that the facts which he may regard as clearly proved, lead necessarily to the guilt of the defendant.  Of course by refusing to submit any question to the jury, the judge refuses to allow counsel to address the jury in the defendant’s behalf.

The constitutional provisions which I insist are violated by this proceeding are the following: 

Constitution of the United States, article 3, section 2.  “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.”

Amendments to Constitution, article 6.  “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”