https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four
This is a two part question….Did a black man destroy the Supreme Court? I will make the case the Supreme Court IS destroyed, and, Justice Clarence Thomas – DESTROYED IT! There is a hidden third part of my question, being – is Thomas A BLACK MAN? Many learned black people – contend he is not a black man. This is being argued – allot!
In Thomas’ Hue and Cry, he highly suggests it is Lesbians, people who want privacy, and folks who want to wear a contraceptive – who are the threat to destroy the Supreme Court, and now that the Conservative Justices have been VICTORIOUS, it is high time THEY PROTECT THE COURT EVEN MORE! Christians are celebrating all over social media the repeal of Roe vs, Wade! They feel their faith has been FORTIFIED. Why couldn’t their ministers at their church make them feel like Supermen? Why was it left up to the Supreme Court to apply the – finishing touches?
“In his opinion, Thomas called for the court to revisit rulings on cases that had affirmed the right to privacy, including access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights.”
If our Constitution is about Freedom, then it is about STOPPING the police from stopping in front of your house, and with a megaphone, broadcasting this message..
“If you are using contraceptives, then we will ONE DAY come inside and arrest you! It may not happen today, but, we will be back – tomorrow! We are told the priest wants to visit you! Do you know what this is about? Your neighbors are curious as all fuck!”
I was born to tackle these Legal and Religious Issues. I am kin to Rosamond Clifford who was King Henry’s mistress. I am kin to John Wilson, and perhaps Gottschalk Rosemondt who defended Erasmus.
John Presco
History of trial by jury in England – Wikipedia
Proud Boys Supporter Warns of ‘Civil War’ if Donald Trump Loses Election (newsweek.com)
The Hue and Cry
By law, if anyone witnessed a crime, they were required to call out the “hue and cry.” (“Hue” means “cry” and “cry” means “hue.” As any good medieval lawyer would come to ask, why use one word when two would do?) The rest of the community in earshot was required to join in a chase of the accused. If caught, he was to be immediately killed. If the fleeing culprit was swift of foot and crossed the community boundary, the pursuers were to stop at the shire line. This was not necessarily good news for the suspect, for the residents of the next shire were to take up the chase.[2]
God’s chosen one
Analysis by Eugene ScottStaff writer
December 18, 2019 at 3:18 p.m. EST
Republican compares Trump to Jesus during impeachment debate
This post was originally posted in November and has been updated.
It is no secret that many conservative Christians think highly of President Trump. He has consistently maintained high approval ratings from white evangelicals since he won the majority of white evangelicals and white Catholics in the 2016 election.
But while defending Trump during the president’s impeachment hearing, Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) made remarks that gave some the impression that the lawmaker thought Trump was worthy of better treatment than Jesus Christ.
“Queen Eleanor” by Frederick Sandys
“Queen Eleanor” by Frederick Sandys depicts Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, King Henry II of England’s wife, on her way to poison her husband’s mistress, Rosamund Clifford.
The traditional story recounts that King Henry concealed his affair from Queen Eleanor by conducting it within a complicated maze’s innermost recesses.
Queen Eleanor penetrated the labyrinth to Rosamund’s bower while trailing a red cord. The red thread is shown in her left hand.
The Queen then and forced her rival to choose between a dagger and a bowl of poison. Fair Rosamund chose the poison and died.
rosamond and king henry – Google Search
Henry II: Father of the Common Law
Posted by: Russell Fowler on Jan 1, 2017
Journal Issue Date: Jan 2017
Journal Name: January 2017 – Vol. 53, No. 1
Our Supreme Court has placed Tennessee in the forefront of the access to justice movement. Although there is much to be done, especially with the funding for our legal aid programs, Tennessee is the national model for advancing the promise of “justice for all.” We are on a road of perfecting the judicial system that began more than 800 years ago with the crowning of England’s King Henry II.
 |
| Henry II and his family |
Henry II, Henry Plantagenet, Henry FitzEmpress or Henry Curtmantle, was known by many names for he was many things and ruled many types of people. He was, nonetheless, the greatest ruler of medieval England and a remarkable combination of wisdom, creativity, compassion, energy, and terrifying power, made all the more terrifying by his volcanic temper. To his subjects, especially the poor, he was seen as the realized King Arthur of legend. Reality saw him as the greatest power since the fall of Rome, the sovereign of the mighty Angevin Empire that stretched from Scotland to the Pyrenees in distant France.
Henry was also “the Father of the Common Law.” In his island realm of England, after decades of civil war, feeble governance, famine and corruption, Henry not only imposed order; he imposed law. His substantive and procedural reforms adroitly maintained the best of Anglo-Saxon custom, while engrafting the best of Norman administrative organization.
Yet of even greater importance, Henry crafted revolutionary innovations all his own. With England, unlike with his French domains, he would break the mold and forge a completely novel judicial system, where process was just as important as outcome. He would not only consolidate royal authority and suppress local power centers; he would, at the expense of petty baronial tribunals, open new national courts to all, rich and poor, powerful and weak.
Henry came to believe that justice was not only a fair resolution of disputes and punishment of the wicked, but it was also equal access to this justice. And these courts, staffed by his experienced and accountable judges, for the first time roved the land applying uniform rules and following the guide of recorded precedent in deciding similar cases.[1] Henry not only had the vision to dream this; he was the first English king to possess the power and initiative to achieve it.
By Henry’s death, instead of justice being the occasional gift of the ruler of the moment, it had won an independence and majesty of its own, even in the eyes of the barons. By the reign of his son John, the law had become even higher than the king himself as made manifest by Magna Carta. What had once been a means of asserting royal power had become the means of limiting it. In other words, what came to be was “the Rule of Law.” It is a short jump from that concept to the idea of inalienable rights. But before we can truly appreciate Henry’s remarkable legal achievements, we must first know what passed for law before him. So let us travel back to the foggy early Middle Ages, the time of Beowulf, the time when “the hue and cry” and the “blood feud” were all “the law.”
 |
| Young King Henry II |
The Hue and Cry
By law, if anyone witnessed a crime, they were required to call out the “hue and cry.” (“Hue” means “cry” and “cry” means “hue.” As any good medieval lawyer would come to ask, why use one word when two would do?) The rest of the community in earshot was required to join in a chase of the accused. If caught, he was to be immediately killed. If the fleeing culprit was swift of foot and crossed the community boundary, the pursuers were to stop at the shire line. This was not necessarily good news for the suspect, for the residents of the next shire were to take up the chase.[2]
So, no matter how fast the runaway was and how slow his pursuers, odds of escape were poor, especially when fresh-winded citizens took over the chase. This game-like pursuit was popular, indeed. It was swift, fun and efficient. Whether it was civilized and just is another question. And there must have been mistakes, frame-ups or those simply too strong (physically or politically) to cry out against. Eventually the legalized communal execution element was ended, but the pursuit remained as an aid to law enforcement.[3]
The Blood Feud
As stated, despite its deficiencies, the hue and cry was swift. The other institution of early medieval law did not have even this virtue. The “blood feud” could go on for generations and theoretically until whole families were wiped out. Records show a feud going on for two decades. So, the word “blood” does not denote the gory nature of the feud, but its dependence on blood-relative retaliation. If someone killed a family member, the family could legally kill the killer. But that was not the end of it. It was next perfectly legal for the newly aggrieved family of the original killer to kill his killer and so on, perpetuating endless familial revenge, the ultimate vicious cycle.[4]
The Wergeld
As the Middle Ages slogged on (and that was literally “slog” for the vast majority: peasants and serfs), a new legal institution arose, the wergeld (“wer” means “man” and “geld” means “money”). Compensation was offered in place of physical retribution. In the beginning the wergeld was elective, but later it became compulsory. If someone was killed, the killer paid a predetermined sum of money to the deceased’s family. The amounts were based on social status. There was even a wergeld set for the king. Of course, the king’s was set so high no one could afford it. As for bodily injury, a “bot” was paid to the victim. A certain amount was set for an eye, an ear, a nose, an arm, a leg, a hand, a finger, a foot, a toe — and even a fingernail. These amounts also varied based on social standing. There was an exception. If someone was in the midst of being attacked, the victim did not have to await the collection of a bot or wergeld. Self-defense was sanctioned and thus the attacker could lawfully be killed. This was called “infangthief.”[5]
Once this compensatory system became mandatory, it put an end to the blood feud, at least the legal blood feud. If the payment was not made, then the perpetrator was declared “an outlaw.” This placed one outside the protection of the law, and it was perfectly legal to kill an outlaw on sight. Eventually the vast English forests, like Sherwood, were filled with these outcasts. Any strangers spotted in a community were presumed to be outlaws subject to execution. Often as a traveler approached a village where he was unknown, he would blow a horn tied to a post at the community border. This announced his presence and that he was not an outlaw. So, the outlawed Robin Hood and his merry men may not have been so merry.[6]
 |
| Trial by Water |
Compurgation
Local courts, controlled by regional warlords and applying varying local custom, arose to administer the wergeld and bot. Over time three kinds of “trials” were born, but they were far different from the trials that we know today. All three were designed to evade reasoned decision-making.[7] The first type was reserved for the privileged class who could avail themselves of what was known as “compurgation” or “adfultum” or “wager of law.” Someone accused of a crime or civil liability came to court with their “oath-helpers” or “compurgators.” The accused swore innocence, and the oath-helpers swore that the accused was upstanding and would never lie. The testimony contained nothing whatsoever about the facts of the case. It was only the mere recitation of a prescribed oath.[8]
This procedure made perjury easy, but the deterrent of heavenly ordained consequences for swearing a falsehood during this pious age should not be discounted. The judge only discerned if the mandated number of oath-helpers appeared (usually 12) and if they spoke the standard oath very precisely. If the number was too low or the oath misspoken, then the accused was guilty. In a situation of misspeaking, it was assumed that God had caused the testifier’s tongue to trip and “burst” the oath.[9]
The Ordeal
The second form of trial, the ordeal or “urtheil,” was for the majority, not for the privileged. It relied on a supernatural sign since man could not be trusted to find hidden truths of guilt or innocence. There were different kinds of ordeals. Those accused might be required to carry a red hot iron or plunge their arm into boiling water. After a few days, the burn was unwrapped and viewed by the court. If it had healed properly, innocence was proclaimed. If infected, guilt was found. In the alternative, the prisoner might be stripped and bound and thrown into a lake or river. If he or she sank, the pure waters had accepted them and they were innocent. If they floated, then they were rejected by the waters and were hence guilty. The judge only determined if the ordeal was to take place and what mode to employ. The rest was left to God. Consequently, a priest oversaw the actual ordeal, which was deemed more a religious than legal event.[10]
Trial by Battle
 |
| Trial by Combat |
The third form of trial was “trial by battle.” Unlike the first two types that appeared in the Anglo-Saxon period, trial by combat came to England after the Norman Conquest of 1066 and was never popular with the masses. It was just too French, and its outcome obviously turned on the strength and fighting skills of the contestants and not so much on divine intervention. Unlike ordeal, which was limited to criminal matters, trial by battle or combat was used for both civil and criminal cases, but hired champions could only be used in civil disputes or in all cases by a party who was disabled, female, a child, a priest or over 60. The advantages were that it limited quarrels to the battlefield and it was entertaining to the Norman ruling class who valued martial valor.[11]
These trial methods met their end in different ways. And at the edges, some local courts began to short-circuit the process in minor cases, both civil and criminal. Sometimes courts would hear some proof and render a decision, which was a money judgment or some form of public degradation, but the important cases were still left to heaven’s purview. The real reforms had to await Henry II, who saw this medieval muddle and found it to be nonsense.[12]
Henry II, The First Plantagenet
At the age of 21, Henry II was crowned king of England on Dec. 19, 1154, at Westminster Abbey beside his queen, a cunning woman nine years his senior. She was the fabulously wealthy and beautiful Eleanor of Aquitaine, who had been Queen of France during her now-annulled first marriage. The ceremony followed a devastating war waged for the throne between Henry’s mother, Empress Matilda, the daughter and heir of Henry I, and King Stephen, Matilda’s cousin who had seized the crown upon Henry I’s death in 1135. A peace treaty left the throne upon Stephen’s death to Henry, and Stephen conveniently died soon thereafter. The coronation was one of the few times Henry looked like a king because he normally dressed like a peasant, hence the moniker “Curt Mantle,” meaning short cape, which is what simple yeomen wore.[13]
Appearances were deceiving. Henry was a true scholar, appreciating art, music, literature, poetry and law. He wrote and spoke Latin. He also loved hunting, horseback riding and travel. Although a fierce warrior, he hated war and the disorder and injustice it wrought. He immediately set about ending the chaos his mother and Stephen had unleashed over two decades. Always on the move both physically and mentally, the robust, barrel-chested, towering king traversed his domains on both sides of the English Channel, rapidly issuing detailed decrees righting wrongs, reforming government and rebuking subordinates.
 |
| An early 14th-century representation of King Henry II with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket |
Henry could do as he liked, for unlike prior and subsequent monarchs, he feared no one: not barons, bishops, kings or popes. He was, in fact, the greatest power in all Christendom, and he made the most of it. It took two years to restore order in England. He began by revoking conflicting land grants given by Stephen and Matilda, toppling unlicensed castles, and imposing taxes upon the nobility to fund his empty treasury. But his most far-reaching reforms were aimed at bolstering royal authority and justice.[14]
The Royal Inquest
Henry’s earliest reforms were simple. For example, to avoid the guilty escaping justice through perjury, in 1166 a statute was enacted precluding compurgation for the most serious offenses. For minor matters, it continued on in local tribunals, and even in royal courts for a time, and was not officially abolished until 1833. Trial by battle was swiftly phased-out with the rise of royal courts and “causes of action” under Henry. In a sense, fighting champions were replaced with contending lawyers.[15]
As for ordeal, since a priest had to be present for the intervention of God’s judgment, it ended abruptly in Europe in 1215 when the Pope ordered the clergy not to participate because the church wanted a more reliable means of catching heretics. Ordeal was preserved for those accused of witchcraft, however. Yet long before the ordeal ended on the continent, it had been made practically meaningless by Henry II in England. He thought it too haphazard and gave too much power to local lords, and therefore he made it irrelevant through the ingenious use of the jury.[16]
Legal historians point to a number of roots of trial by jury, including Teutonic folkways and Anglo-Saxon “doomsmen” who pronounced local custom, but the most immediate source is “the Royal Inquest” or “Inquisitio Regis” imported by the Normans. Under this administrative tool, kings periodically ordered certain subjects to provide sworn information on problems of importance. Since they were required to take an oath, it got the name “Jurare,” which means “to swear.” Questions might be as follows: “Who has always owned this tract of land?” or “Has the sheriff duly suppressed highwaymen?” or “Has the local lord abused the serfs of his shire?” Before Henry, under less secure rulers, it was also a way to avoid personally making decisions on controversial land disputes with the church or between supporters. Regardless of the strength of the king, it was only available to the nobility on an impromptu basis.[17]
The Royal Inquest’s most famous and all-encompassing use was by William the Conqueror in 1086. He used it to create a great inventory of his newly won kingdom. It cataloged all the land, personal property (every cow, ox and pig), customs and privileges of England and recorded it in the imposing “Doomsday Book” or “Domesday Book” (“doom” means law or judgment, not punishment). From time to time, these royal officials compiling the inventory had to resolve ownership disputes in order to note the owner.[18] Interestingly, the Doomsday Book still exists.
The Civil Jury Trial
The Royal Inquest was originally and widely used under Henry II because of the massive land disputes resulting from the civil war, which involved the principal form of wealth and thus about the only type of civil dispute. The jury was summoned in a locality to give a sworn answer as to who was the rightful owner of certain land prior to issuance of conflicting grants by Stephen and Matilda. Prior to Henry, such inquiries were rare, indeed, but he made them available to all upon payment of a small, standard fee to his chancery: the secretariat and “writ shop” of government and not yet a court. The writ commencing the inquest was called “the Assize of Novel Disseisin.” It was also the name of the judicial proceeding itself. Upon receipt of the writ, the sheriff would summon the alleged land owners to court.[19]
 |
| Medieval English law court |
This regularized writ system not only opened the judicial process to everyone; it offered standardized allegations that had to be made before the writ would be issued. This gave birth to “the forms” or “causes of action.” The egalitarian nature of Henry’s writs is further reflected in his “Writ of Libertate Probanda” (“for providing freedom”). This writ could result in the freeing of a serf tied to specific land.[20]
Once the writ was issued, jurors were summoned. These early jurors did not hear evidence but brought it in their heads. So, the ideal jury, unlike today, was one that knew something about the case beforehand, but, finally, facts were being considered.[21] This process was overseen by Henry’s royal justices, who fanned out across the country with great pomp. The jury size was fixed at 12, most likely because that was the number of disciples Christ selected. Superstitious medieval folk also did not like odd numbers. In practicality, the number 12 was not unwieldy yet was a good cross-section of the community and offered an impressive consensus. There was also no room for doubt. Accordingly, all juries had to be unanimous to render a verdict.[22]
Henry’s justices who oversaw the jury still had to make various decisions. In the beginning, his judges were members of “the Great Council” or “the Curia Regis” who were periodically sent out to conduct judicial duties or inquests. With Henry’s expansion of judicial business, judges were eventually detached from the council, assigned to ever increasing circuits, and developed real expertise.[23]
The judges also began to write down their decisions and followed precedent (stare decisis) and would choose the best local customs and applied them to the entire realm through the use of the first legal reporter: “the Year Book.”[24] This judge-made law was “the common law,” and fulfilled Henry’s goal of a single and humane body of law for all England.[25] And, probably at Henry’s insistence, Sir Ranulf de Glanvill, Justiciar of England, wrote the first treatise devoted to English law.[26] To navigate these new national rules and rulings, a professional bar arose, and, with the advent of criminal jury trials, public prosecutors appeared.[27]
The Criminal Jury Trial
Henry brought the jury system to criminal law, too. First, he decreed that all murder and highway robbery cases be prosecuted in his courts. By 1176, royal judicial jurisdiction was extended to all crimes. He not only undermined manorial courts, he also took significant power from church courts. In 1164 he decreed that clergy, which had been interpreted to include anyone who could read and write, could continue to be tried by the church courts, but if found guilty of a crime, punishment would be handled by Henry’s secular courts.[28]
In 1166, “the Assize of Clarendon” was announced, named for his favorite hunting lodge where he was residing at the time. Under this new procedure, Henry’s justices scurried up and down the country convening juries in every county. However, unlike his civil juries, these criminal jurymen did not have to have personal knowledge of the facts.[29] After hearing some evidence, including hearsay if need be, “the Clarendon jury,” later called “the grand jury,” did not technically discern guilt or innocence but only said if the trial by ordeal was to take place.[30] Yet as we shall see, in a sneaky way, it did.
If someone was accused of a crime by a Clarendon jury, then he or she had to endure the ordeal. If the sign from God indicated guilt, then punishment would be inflicted as always. Murderers would be hanged, for example. Traditional mutilations were inflicted for lesser crimes. But if the ordeal showed innocence, then a different form of punishment was still imposed: the accused would have to leave the country. Thus, in a sense, the ordeal was made pointless by Henry, for one was sanctioned either way if the jury found the ordeal in order.[31] Therefore the Clarendon jury proceeding produced more than an accusation; it was really a trial of sorts.
Following a sign of innocence and the resulting order of exile, the accused had to leave England (“abjure the land”) as soon as possible. Since England is an island, however, it was not always easy to catch a boat. To prove good faith while waiting at the nearest port, and perhaps reflecting Henry’s sense of humor, every evening the exiled had to wade out into the ocean up to his head.[32]
This abjuration penalty vanished slowly. And instead of throwing people out, more often they were locked up. Soon a jury trial option was added.[33] The accused could choose between the ordeal or a real jury trial before a lesser jury, “the petit jury.” Hence the grand or Clarendon jury determination was no longer final and the second trial could result in acquittal.[34] Subsequently, as mentioned, the ordeal was dropped all together in 1215 and there was just the jury trial option following indictment.[35]
After Henry’s reign, barbarity slipped back in a bit. Even though the ordeal was gone, the trial still had to be “chosen” by the defendant. But some defendants, even the innocent, would refuse to choose it to avoid a possible guilty verdict, for if found guilty their land would be forfeit to the impoverishment of their family. Officials, therefore, resorted to imprisonment and torture to win consent. Sometimes the accused was jailed and offered only sewage water to drink or rocks were piled on their chest until they agreed to the trial or died. Eventually, this savagery was ended when trials could take place without consent or failure to consent was deemed an admission of guilt.[36]
Henry’s Legacy
By the end of Henry’s long reign, his justice was known the world over, and other kings would humbly submit their disputes to him for resolution.[37] Yet, despite his power, compassion and wisdom, which were indispensable to creating his legal system, his undoing came, and from an unexpected quarter. He could bring order to a nation but not to his family. After many tries, his treacherous wife and son Richard (the Lionheart) finally managed a successful coup in 1189. Queen Eleanor may have had her excuses. He cheated on her a lot, but he doted on his children. Trapped and lying on his deathbed in France, the broken, forlorn king learned that his beloved son John had joined the gloating conspirators. Henry’s last words were “Enough; now let things go as they may; I care no more for myself or for the world … Shame, shame on a conquered king.”[38]
However, Henry’s greatest achievement lived on: the common law. More than 800 years it has survived, grown and spread with the British Empire around the globe and has done incalculable good. And, ironically, the jury, an invention of his absolute monarchy, became the most democratic of institutions as the people themselves come into their government and make decisions.
No, Henry’s parting utterance was wrong. A better summation of his life was placed in his mouth in the film The Lion in Winter: “I’ve found how good it is to write a law or make a tax more fair or sit in judgment to decide which peasant gets a cow. There is, I tell you, nothing more important in the world.”[39]
 |
| The tomb of Henry II |
Notes
- See Samuel W. McCart, Trial by Jury 3 (2nd ed. 1965).
- See Charles Rembar, The Law of the Land: The Evolution of Our Legal System 93-94 (1980); John H. Langbein, et al., History of the Common Law: Development of Anglo-American Legal Institutions 21-23 (2009); Theodore F. T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law 430 (1956); L. B. Curzon, English Legal History 229 (2d ed. 1979).
- Id.
- See id. 95-96.
- See id. at 97-98.
- Id. 98.
- J. H. Baker, An Introduction to the English Legal History 5 (3rd ed. 1990).
- See Charles Rembar, The Law of the Land: The Evolution of Our Legal System 100-101 (1980); L. B. Curzon, English Legal History 76 (2d ed. 1979); R. C. Van Caenegem, The Birth of English Common Law 66 (2nd 1988).
- Id.
- Id. at 102-105; L. B. Curzon, English Legal History 13 (2d ed. 1979); J. H. Baker, An Introduction to the English Legal History 5 (3rd ed. 1990).
- Id. at 108-11; L. B. Curzon, English Legal History 76-77 (2d ed. 1979).
- See id. at 111-15.
- See Arthur R. Hogue, Origins of the Common Law 35 (1966).
- The best and more authoritative biography of Henry II is W. L. Warren, Henry II (1973).
- Charles Rembar, The Law of the Land: The Evolution of Our Legal System 111-115 (1980);
- Id.
- See id. at 116-18.
- See id. at 118-21.
- See id. at 128-29.
- See id.
- See id. at 129.
- See id. at 159-63.
- See J. H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History 225 (3rd ed. 1990).
- Id.
- See Charles Rembar, The Law of the Land: The Evolution of Our Legal System 145 (1980).
- See J. H. Baker, An Introduction to the English Legal History 15-16 (3rd ed. 1990).
- For the best discussion on the rise of the bar, see id. at 177-189.
- Samuel W. McCart, Trial by Jury 7 (2nd ed. 1965).
- Id.
- See Charles Rembar, The Law of the Land: The Evolution of Our Legal System 146-47 (1980).
- See id. at 147.
- See id.
- Theodore F. T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law 130 (1956).
- See Charles Rembar, The Law of the Land: The Evolution of Our Legal System 157-58 (1980).
- See id. at 167.
- See id.
- See W. L. Warren, Henry II 603 (1973).
- Elizabeth Longford, ed., The Oxford Book of Royal Anecdotes 77 (1989).
- The Lion in Winter (Avco Embassy Pictures 1968).
RUSSELL FOWLER is director of litigation and advocacy at Legal Aid of East Tennessee (LAET) and since 1999 has been adjunct professor of political science at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He served as the law clerk to Chancellor C. Neal Small in Memphis and earned his law degree at the University of Memphis in 1987. Fowler has many publications on law and legal history, including many in this Journal, includiing the quarterly column “History’s Verdict.”
Rosamond Press 