Talk:Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)

I am not sure what is happening in the second paragraph of "Opinion." Is there a block quote there that wasn't formatted correctly? Pullarius1 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Holding versus dicta

In its present form, this article seems to be not much more than an extended quote from the text of the Court's opinion, and some unsourced commentary to the effect that the Court issued a holding on the principle of jury nullification. I removed the unsourced commentary.

A "holding" in a court case does not consist of just anything that the court said. For a statement to be a holding, the statement must involve a decision by the court -- and a decision can come about only if the parties disputed the issue which gave rise to the statement and the court, as a result, actually resolved the dispute.

All other words included in statements about what the law is that are found in a court opinion are called obiter dicta, or just "dicta". Dicta are non-binding statements about what the law is. Dicta are not rulings by the court; they are not holdings or decisions of the court.

In subsequent cases, courts do often quote and cite dicta found in earlier court cases. And subsequent courts (and legal commentators) may well cite Georgia v. Brailsford for the proposition that jury nullification is part of our American legal system (which it is). But the Wikipedia article on this case needs to be accurate, and it needs to be properly sourced with verifiable, previously published third party sources. Famspear (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: The fact that the dicta in a given court opinion consist of a correct statement of the law (and most dicta are indeed correct statements of the law) does not make the statements "not be dicta." They're still dicta, which means that they're non-binding, non-holdings, non-rulings, non-decisions in that particular court case. Lawyers and judges spend years studying court cases, and they learn how to cite and use dicta in legal proceedings. We as Wikipedia editors need to be careful in this area. Famspear (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But this is not dicta, since the Chief Justice wrote that "The facts comprehended in the case, are agreed." There was no question of fact to put to the jury. Only if the law was within the jury's "power of decision" would there be anything for the jury to decide. 38.108.247.152 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 38.108.247.152: I'm not sure what you mean by "this". What is the "this" that you are talking about?

If you're talking about the text of the Court's opinion as printed in the article, I should point out that the text of the opinion in Georgia v. Brailsford contains no holding -- no ruling by the Court -- that the jury determines both the law and the facts.

Yes, that is essentially what the Court said -- but that is not what the Court ruled. There is a difference.

In other words, the parties in the case were not disagreeing over whether a jury decides both law and facts. The parties were not litigating that question. What that means is that while the Court's statement on the law with respect to that subject may be correct (or may have been correct at the time of that case), the Court's statement is not a ruling, not a holding, not strictly speaking a judicial precedent in the case. Words stated about the law by a court in a case where the parties are not litigating that particular point of law are generally dicta. They're not part of any holding in that case, and they're not binding on courts in later cases. This is a difficult concept for non-lawyers, and it's something that law students learn in law school, by studying the texts of literally thousands of court cases.

The Court's opinion in this case is really a description of the contentions of the parties and a description of some instructions to a jury -- ending with a short report of the verdict of the jury.

Old cases such as this one are confusing for non-lawyers, and especially confusing for people who are interested in the concept of jury nullification. For example, scammers who engage in illegal attempts to evade U.S. federal income tax sometimes try to circumvent the law by "arguing the law to the jury." That kind of tactic is generally not allowed. Jury nullification does not mean that the parties themselves (plaintiff or defendant in a civil case, prosecutor or defendant in a criminal case) have a "right" to "argue the law to the jury." Under the U.S. legal system, the judge gives the law to the jury, and the jury takes a oath to apply the law -- as given by the judge -- to the facts of the case.

Jury nullification comes into play primarily (to give an example) where a jury finds a defendant not guilty in a criminal case even though the members of the jury are aware that the prosecution has proved its case, but the jury disagrees with the law, etc. In such a case, the legal system does not second guess the jury. The judge will render a judgment of acquittal, even if the judge disagrees with the jury's verdict. And the prosecutor cannot appeal an acquittal resulting from a not guilty verdict by a jury in a criminal case. Further, the members of the jury cannot be punished for not following the law.

There is no ruling or holding in Georgia v. Brailsford that would give the parties in a case the right to give the jury copies of materials on the law. And there is nothing in Georgia v. Brailsford that gives the jury members some sort of right to see those kinds of materials. The jury instructions come from the judge. Famspear (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Stated another way: The issue that the parties were fighting over was the issue of who owned the right to be paid on the debt. The parties were not disagreeing about (or fighting over) the issue of whether a jury decides both law and facts, and that means that the Court's statements on that point of law were not holdings in the case -- they were not judicial precedent. Some people may have claimed that the statements were precedent (and the article says that some people have tried to claim that). But that does not convert the Court's statements into "precedent". Famspear (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia says, "A judicial statement can be ratio decidendi only if it refers to the crucial facts and law of the case. Statements that are not crucial, or which refer to hypothetical facts or to unrelated law issues, are obiter dicta. Obiter dicta (often simply dicta, or obiter) are remarks or observations made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, do not form a necessary part of the court's decision." it goes on to say, "The so-called Wambaugh's Inversion Test provides that to determine whether a judicial statement is ratio or obiter, you should invert the argument, that is to say, ask whether the decision would have been different, had the statement been omitted. If so, the statement is crucial and is ratio; whereas if it is not crucial, it is obiter."

There is no doubt that if court had had a different opinion of the power of the jury to judge law and fact, the case would have come out differently, because the case would not have been submitted to the jury. THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF FACT TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY. If juries are only judges of fact, the court wrongly submitted the question to the jury. Indeed today a court would not submit the case to the jury because there was no question of fact for them to try. 38.121.181.77 (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation please?

Hi, I tried finding this article by searching "Brailsford" and got taken to a Brailsford (the place) page with no chance to stop at disambiguation choices. Could that be changed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.201.249 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)