AT Labor/Unions Backlash against jury nullification used to destroy labor movements, empirics Conrad 14 summarizes Conrad, Clay S, author and attorney, Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, published by Cato Institute, 2014 edition, originally published 1998, ProQuest. [, , ] countering the reluctance of juries to convict in labor cases was one factor It has been suggested that motivating the decision in Sparf , or perhaps leading to the decision to hear this court’s otherwise unimportant homicide case at all. The government had shown great interest in 162 defeating the labor movement. U.S. Attorney General Richard Olney personally argued the position in government’s Debs’ Habeas Corpus motion, 163 and the notedly conservative Fuller court (which had just decided United States v. E.C. Knight Co. 164 ) could be Sparf would have been an ideal case to choose to limit the presumed to favor the railroads over the unions. discomfiting tenacity of independent juries. The Sparf decision had only a marginal effect on the labor movement. Opponents of labor, turned from pursuing criminal observing the success of their efforts against the ARU, conspiracy prosecutions against union leaders, and increasingly sought injunctions against labor organizations after 1894. in 118 labor injunction According to Felix Frankfurter and Nathan Greene, cases in a 27-year period (representing the minority of the injunctions covered by reported ex parte opinions), “seventy were granted restraining orders without notice to the defendants or opportunity to be heard. In but twelve of these instances, was the bill of complaint accompanied by supporting affidavits; in the remaining fifty-eight cases, the interdict issued upon the mere submission of a court’s bill expressing conventional formulas, frequently even without a verification.”
AT Labor/Unions Backlash against jury nullification used to destroy labor movements, empirics Conrad 14 summarizes Conrad, Clay S, author and attorney, Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, published by Cato Institute, 2014 edition, originally published 1998, ProQuest. [, , ] It has been suggested that countering the reluctance of juries to convict in labor cases was one factor motivating the decision in Sparf , or perhaps leading to the court’s decision to hear this otherwise unimportant homicide case at all. 162 The government had shown great interest in defeating the labor movement. U.S. Attorney General Richard Olney personally argued the government’s position in Debs’ Habeas Corpus motion, 163 and the notedly conservative Fuller court (which had just decided United States v. E.C. Knight Co. 164 ) could be presumed to favor the railroads over the unions. Sparf would have been an ideal case to choose to limit the discomfiting tenacity of independent juries. The Sparf decision had only a marginal effect on the labor movement. Opponents of labor, observing the success of their efforts against the ARU, turned from pursuing criminal conspiracy prosecutions against union leaders, and increasingly sought injunctions against labor organizations after 1894. According to Felix Frankfurter and Nathan Greene, in 118 labor injunction cases in a 27-year period (representing the minority of the injunctions covered by reported opinions), “seventy ex parte restraining orders were granted without notice to the defendants or opportunity to be heard. In but twelve of these instances, was the bill of complaint accompanied by supporting affidavits; in the remaining fifty-eight cases, the court’s interdict issued upon the mere submission of a bill expressing conventional formulas, frequently even without a verification.”
Premier-Debate-Brief-ND15.docx