Attorneys for Civic Education (“ACE”) is proud to announce that three Idaho Students and their schools were selected for prizes in ACE’s second Civics Contest. Student essays explored the federal and state constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal case from the standpoint of both the accused and citizens serving as jurors. The three winning entries were: Ella Barton, North Junior High School; Jesse Evelyn, Evelyn Family Homeschool; and Aunna Reynolds, Idaho Home Learning Academy. ACE would like to extend its gratitude to all the students who submitted entries and the teachers who supported them in that effort.

The ACE Civics Contest is open to Idaho middle school students. The contest was financially sponsored by the Idaho State Bar Fourth District Bar Association, whose financial contribution allowed ACE to award prizes to the top three entries along with an honorarium to the schools to be used for civics-related purposes. The Idaho Supreme Court, Idaho Court of Appeals, and the University of Idaho College of Law also provided extensive support.

One of the members of the judging panel, Donald Burnett, noted: “The students, ranging in age from 11 to 14, showed a welcome appreciation for the importance of juries under the federal and state constitutions, as well as for the right and responsibility of citizens to participate directly in their government through jury service.”

ACE would like to thank the judging panel – Justice Gregory Moeller, Don Burnett, Melissa Davlin, and Frith Stevenson – and the Fourth District Bar Association for their support of the Civics Contest. We appreciate their dedication to advancing civic education in Idaho.

ACE welcomes new members. Visit our website for more information. One of the three winning entries is published below, as well as in print in the February 2023 issue of The Advocate.

---

Preserving Liberty

By Aunna Reynolds

Imagine if one was suddenly thrown in jail only to sit there for the rest of one’s life not knowing the reason for the incarceration or having the ability to prove one’s innocence. Without the right to trial by jury, that could happen! In the United States Constitution it confirms the right to a speedy and public trial. This makes it so people can’t throw others in jail and say they will give them a trial but never do it. It also guarantees the right to a public trial meaning they can’t hold a trial in some distant location. This right protects them from others twisting whatever happened in the trial for their benefit. Clearly, trial by jury is a very important constitutional right for the accused, but it is also important for those serving as jurors.

The Idaho Constitution and the United States Constitution explain the right to trial by jury. In the United States Constitution amendment six it states, “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.” It also affirms the right to a lawyer, witnesses, and the right to know about any accusations imposed upon one. The Idaho Constitution in section seven states, ”The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate …. trial by jury may be waived in all criminal cases, by the consent of all parties, expressed in open court.”

They both confirm the importance of a trial by jury as well as rights one has for protection

against people who abuse power. The United States Constitution lays the foundation of what

trial by jury is. The Idaho Constitution explains when, in criminal cases, a trial by jury could be waived and the necessary circumstances for that to occur.

Trial by jury is not only for the benefits of the accused, it also is beneficial for those serving as jurors. Jurors are given the ability to help each other in making sure others’ rights are protected. In being part of a jury one can participate and appreciate our laws and constitution. Jurors also have the ability to learn their rights so that if they are accused they can be prepared and have experience. Jurors can also meet other people of various backgrounds and personalities and participate in their role as a citizen.

Trial by jury is an important and influential right not only for the accused but also for the jurors. By being able to have a trial by jury, rights are protected and remain pure. Due to the many laws and rights written in the Idaho and United states Constitutions, freedom can continue on. Trial by jury is one of the most important rights that one has in preserving liberty.

Attorneys for Civic Education (“ACE”) is proud to announce that three Idaho Students and their schools were selected for prizes in ACE’s second Civics Contest. Student essays explored the federal and state constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal case from the standpoint of both the accused and citizens serving as jurors. The three winning entries were: Ella Barton, North Junior High School; Jesse Evelyn, Evelyn Family Homeschool; and Aunna Reynolds, Idaho Home Learning Academy. ACE would like to extend its gratitude to all the students who submitted entries and the teachers who supported them in that effort.

The ACE Civics Contest is open to Idaho middle school students. The contest was financially sponsored by the Idaho State Bar Fourth District Bar Association, whose financial contribution allowed ACE to award prizes to the top three entries along with an honorarium to the schools to be used for civics-related purposes. The Idaho Supreme Court, Idaho Court of Appeals, and the University of Idaho College of Law also provided extensive support.

One of the members of the judging panel, Donald Burnett, noted: “The students, ranging in age from 11 to 14, showed a welcome appreciation for the importance of juries under the federal and state constitutions, as well as for the right and responsibility of citizens to participate directly in their government through jury service.”

ACE would like to thank the judging panel – Justice Gregory Moeller, Don Burnett, Melissa Davlin, and Frith Stevenson – and the Fourth District Bar Association for their support of the Civics Contest. We appreciate their dedication to advancing civic education in Idaho.

ACE welcomes new members. Visit our website for more information. One of the three winning entries is published below, as well as in print in the February 2023 issue of The Advocate.

---

George to Joe

By Jesse Evelyn

The right of trial by jury was not always enjoyed by the colonists of America. James Madison wrote the first twelve amendments after the Constitution was in place. Ten were ratified; these became the Bill of Rights. The case of J.P. Zenger in 1735 laid the groundwork for the rights of the individual citizen. Andrew Hamilton was the distinguished lawyer who claimed a fair, public, and speedy trial was a right of everyone, now found in the 6th Amendment.

The right to trial by jury in the U.S. Constitution is found in Article 3 and the 6th Amendment. Everyone has a right to an impartial, local jury in court, a speedy and public hearing, and a lawyer to defend them. The Constitution is intended to benefit the individual, not the government.

The right to trial by jury in the Idaho Constitution is found in Article 1: Section 7. Each has an inviolate right to a jury. In a criminal case, the right to trial by jury can be waived, if the accused requests it and all parties agree.

Both the U.S. and the Idaho Constitutions cite civil trials, but the Idaho Constitution has more emphasis on civil trials. The Idaho Constitution declares that a verdict could be reached with a 5/6 majority, while the U.S. Constitution denied mention of what was needed for a verdict. Six- to twelve-person juries are used in Idaho, although the U.S. Constitution does not specify jury size.

The right to trial by jury is affirmed by the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions, with few differences. Most importantly, we all have equal rights. Each person can have a fair trial, and innocent people can stay out of jail.

The accused individual is helped by a fair jury trial. What “everyone thinks” is not always right. One who is accused is not necessarily guilty; one should not go to jail if innocent. More truth comes out in a trial because a jury listens to both sides before deciding to convict. The trial must be public, so justice is seen by the court. If the individual is innocent, he cannot be tried again for the same crime. If a mistake is made, it should be in favor of life and freedom.

The citizen/juror benefits by juries in many ways. Anyone accused of a crime has a right to a jury, meaning every citizen can also have a fair trial if accused. The jurors are not allowed to hear anything outside of the courtroom that might cloud their judgment. The jury brings the voice of the people to the trial.

The accused person and the citizen/juror both benefit from the constitutional right to a jury. The most important benefit is that everyone has the right to a jury in a criminal case because many innocent people would go to jail under a selfish tyrant. The right protects both the accused and the citizen. The jury makes it fair for everyone, from King George to the average Joe.

Bibliography

Harper, Leslie. What Are Rights and Responsibilities? New York, Rosen Publishing Group, 2013.

Idaho Constitution. The Official Website of the Idaho Legislature. Internet Archive, 1890, . https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idconst. Accessed 10 Oct 2022.

Lee, Rex E. A Lawyer Looks at the Constitution. Provo, Brigham Young University Press, 1981.

Marcovitz, Hal. The Constitution. Philadelphia, Mason Crest Publishers, 2003.

Peterson, Christine. The U.S. Constitution. Mankato, Capstone Press, 2009.

Smith, Edward C. The Constitution of the United States. New York, Barnes and Noble, 1968.

Attorneys for Civic Education (“ACE”) is proud to announce that three Idaho Students and their schools were selected for prizes in ACE’s second Civics Contest. Student essays explored the federal and state constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal case from the standpoint of both the accused and citizens serving as jurors. The three winning entries were: Ella Barton, North Junior High School; Jesse Evelyn, Evelyn Family Homeschool; and Aunna Reynolds, Idaho Home Learning Academy. ACE would like to extend its gratitude to all the students who submitted entries and the teachers who supported them in that effort.

The ACE Civics Contest is open to Idaho middle school students. The contest was financially sponsored by the Idaho State Bar Fourth District Bar Association, whose financial contribution allowed ACE to award prizes to the top three entries along with an honorarium to the schools to be used for civics-related purposes. The Idaho Supreme Court, Idaho Court of Appeals, and the University of Idaho College of Law also provided extensive support.

One of the members of the judging panel, Donald Burnett, noted: “The students, ranging in age from 11 to 14, showed a welcome appreciation for the importance of juries under the federal and state constitutions, as well as for the right and responsibility of citizens to participate directly in their government through jury service.”

ACE would like to thank the judging panel – Justice Gregory Moeller, Don Burnett, Melissa Davlin, and Frith Stevenson – and the Fourth District Bar Association for their support of the Civics Contest. We appreciate their dedication to advancing civic education in Idaho.

ACE welcomes new members. Visit our website for more information. One of the three winning entries is published below, as well as in print in the February 2023 issue of The Advocate.

---

Winning Entry: Barton

By Ella Barton, North Junior High School

The U.S. Constitution has two provisions that protect a person’s right to trial by jury in criminal cases. Under Article III, Section 2, the “Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury.” This provision, enacted in 1787, protects one’s right to jury trial in criminal cases, except impeachment. Because this provision is found in Article III, the Article that deals with the power of federal courts, this provision protects one’s right to a jury trial in federal courts.

The other provision is the 6th Amendment. Under the 6th Amendment, 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.” This provision, enacted in 1791, also protects a person’s right to a jury trial in criminal cases. The provision also describes the nature of the jury, stating that it must be impartial and must come from the state and district in which the crime was committed.

The Idaho Constitution also protects a person’s right to a trial by jury. Under Article I, Section 7, the “right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; . . . A trial by jury may be waived in all criminal cases, by the consent of all parties, expressed in open court, and . . . by the consent of the parties, signified in such manner as may be prescribed by law. . . . Provided, that in cases of misdemeanor . . . , the jury shall consist of not more than six.” This provision, enacted in 1890, protects a person’s right to a jury trial in state courts. It also describes how a jury trial may be waived, and the size of the jury and how many jurors are necessary to convict a defendant.

The right to a jury trial in criminal cases is beneficial for both the accused and the jury. Jury service places the right to imprison someone in the hands of the people, as opposed to the hands of the government. The government cannot fine a person or take away a person’s belongings without the authorization of the jury, thus protecting a person’s possessions. The right to trial by jury is important to the accused because it allows the accused to have their fate be decided not by the government, but by a group of fair people, who are subject to the same laws as the accused and make decisions that are not orchestrated by the government.

The right to a jury trial is essential to liberty. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his letter to A. Coray in 1823, trial by jury is “the best of all safeguards for the person, the property, and the fame of every individual.” Serving on a jury positively impacts jurors. Jury duty grants jurors a direct hand in the government and allows jurors to see the wheels of justice turning. Jury duty also educates jurors about the justice system and ties them to the Constitution.

Lindsey M. Welfley

You may notice this spot in the magazine is missing Diane Minnich’s usual Executive Director’s Report. As we get into the swing of things for the new year, there are a few changes we are implementing to improve our communication with our members. Starting this year, each issue of The Advocate will contain a rotating internal department report penned by one of our staff members. Our goal is to keep you up to date on the happenings of the Bar and Foundation, one department at a time. Our Communications Department has undergone some important changes in the last year that we’d like to outline.

Production of The Advocate

The first and perhaps most notable change is to the production of this magazine. Starting with the January 2023 issue, we have outsourced the production to a third-party publisher. While this magazine is a quality publication, which will remain the case, it is no longer the main source of communication with our members, given the availability and practicality of more immediate methods of communication.

Outsourcing this internal process will ultimately create an opportunity for us to better serve you – our members. We will now have the capacity to better utilize staff resources and expand our use of those other, more immediate forms of communication.

Social Media Strategy

As we have been reevaluating how we communicate with our members, one of these methods of more immediate communication is social media. For better or worse (we’ll let you decide), social media is certainly here to stay and the changing landscape can be difficult to navigate. Nevertheless, given the goals of our Board and the mission of the Bar, social media platforms are a great tool to communicate with our members quickly with measurable impact.

In 2023 we will be implementing an updated social media strategy that will guide our content, scheduling, and reporting. Our goal is to meet our members where you already are and capitalize on that ability to keep you informed. Watch for regular, relevant content on Facebook and LinkedIn!

Communications Internship

Another new opportunity we added in 2022 was the addition of a Communications Internship position within our department. We welcomed our first intern during the Summer 2022 semester and will continue to offer this unpaid internship each semester going forward. Our interns will assist with general communications work, magazine tasks, and provide support to the department, all while gaining real-life experience in a professional office environment. If you know of any college students local to Boise who may be interested in this opportunity during an upcoming semester, please have them contact me via email at lwelfley@isb.idaho.gov.

As we continue through 2023, we look forward to receiving any feedback you may have on how we communicate with you. It is imperative that we listen, improve, and reassess as needed – your input is always welcome.

---

By Tenielle Fordyce-Ruff

Well, the pandemic was a wild ride for me!  In the switch to stay-at-home, then pandemic pods, I was also pivoting to online teaching, then I moved to two different law schools in 18 months.  Needless to say I took a pandemic pause from this column.  My life, however, is a little less chaotic now, so I’m back.

Inspired by my pause, I settled on discussing problematic “P” words for my comeback.  Sit back and enjoy learning a little more about “P” words that might give you pause when you’re writing.

Pandemic/Epidemic/Endemic

This set made me giggle as I was researching this column.  I am certain you all understand the difference by 2023, so no more about this!

Perimeter/Periphery

Both perimeter and periphery mean an outer boundary.  Perimeter is a clear line, but periphery is more uncertain.

The perimeter of his property was a fence on the north side, but the periphery was unclear on the other sides.

Partake in/Partake of

Partake in means to take part in.  Partake of means to receive a share of something.

Participants partake in a public forum.  Children partake of cake and ice cream parties.

Partly/Partially

I love this one because it involves ambiguity and measure.  If the parts are physical or you can measure extent, use partly.  If you are referring to quality or the measure is of degree, use partially.

Downtown is full of partly finished buildings.  She is partially recovered from her severe sprain.

If either word could work in context, use partly.  It’s less ambiguous.  And remember, partially also means showing favoritism.  The estate was partially divided among the children.

Past/Passed

This is a tricky one.  After all, “the past has passed.”[i]

As an adjective, past means gone or elapsed.  As a noun it refers to time gone by or the history of something.  As a noun, passed refers to the act of passing; as a verb it means to go by or to let go without action.  So, you can reminisce about times past, but the days passed in quiet contemplation.

Patent/Latent

First, a note about pronunciation here.  Both patent and latent are pronounced with along <a> sound, so they rhyme.  If you say patent with a short <a>, you are talking about a long-term monopoly granted to an inventor.

To be patent, a thing is open and obvious.  To be latent, a thing is hidden.

Her patent talent was knowing obscure grammar; her latent talent was making excellent coffee.

Peak/Peek/Pique

Ah, the blunders this triple create.  Read this:

Her peak at the book about peaks peaked her interest.

If you were to say this out loud, it would sound fine, but not so in writing.  A peak is a mountaintop.  To peek is to take a quick look.  A pique is a fit of resentment, and to pique is to annoy or arouse.

This would be correct:

Her peek at the book about peaks piqued her interest.

Peddle/Pedal

These are pronounced the same, and that can lead to frequent misspellings.  Peddle means to sell something (I remember this because peddle and sell both have double letters.)  Pedal means to pump with the foot.

Here’s some fun (somewhat obscure) etymology:  one piano pedal softens sounds, so to soft-pedal is to lower the intensity.  This phrase is often misspelled as soft-peddle.

Permit/Allow

While frequently used as synonyms, permit and allow have different connotations.

If you permit something, you give it your approval.  To allow something doesn’t connote approval.

The judge overruled the objection and permitted the question.  Hearing no objections, the judge allowed the question.

Practical/Practicable

Another set of frequently misused adjectives.  Practical means realistic (not just theoretical) or advantageous.  Practicable means feasible.

Paying so much more for such little benefit isn’t practical.  The budget increase made hiring another associate practicable.

Precede/Proceed

The verb forms of precede/proceed are switched often and precede is frequently misspelled as preceed.

Precede means to go before in order or rank.  Proceed means to move forward or to carry on.

She preceded him through the door.  After pausing for a moment to survey the room, she proceeded to sit in a corner chair.

Proceeds (the noun) is something that results or accrues.  The proceeds of the stock sale were divided partly, with some reinvested.

Premise/Premises

Premise refers to logic; it’s a proposition from which a conclusion can be drawn.  Remember this “All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal”?  All men are mortal and Socrates is a man are the major and minor premise in this syllogism.  In fact, we attorneys write using premises all the time.

But, premises (always plural) refers to the space inside the boundaries of a property.  The polite way to tell someone to stay off your lawn is to ask them to leave the premises.

Presently/Currently/Momentarily

While many of us use these terms interchangeably, they don’t mean precisely the same thing.  Presently can mean immediately or soon, but modern usage also includes the meaning of now.  Currently means now.  Momentarily means lasting for a moment, but it also has come to mean in a moment.

To avoid the ambiguity that imprecise use of these terms can bring, write around them. For instance, use soon or now instead of presently.  Use, in a moment instead of momentarily.  After all, telling your client that court is starting presently when you mean now but they hear soon wouldn’t be good.

Conclusion

I am so happy to be back after a pandemic pause.  The peace of writing for The Advocate again is phenomenal. 

Source note:  The inspiration for this is from Bryan A. Garner, The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style 259-62 (2d ed. 2006).

---

---

[i] Bryan A. Garner, The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style 260 (2d ed. 2006).