Colonial Criminal Law and Procedure: The Royal Colony of New Jersey 1749-57
The criminal law and procedure of the colonial courts is largely shrouded in mystery. New Jersey is one of the most mysterious colonies. Princeton historian Douglas Greenberg has remarked: “We know very little about the pattern of criminal justice in eighteenth-century New Jersey.” What research exists about “patterns of criminal justice” in other colonies has focused largely on substantive criminal law—e.g., showing the number of indictments, convictions, and acquittals of various criminal offenses. We know very little about the trial process. Were the trials like those in the Old Bailey in England? Did most defendants have counsel? Was the king usually represented by counsel? Were juries used? Always, often, never? What kind of evidence was offered? Did the pre-trial proceedings include, as in England, questioning by a magistrate? If so, were the answers given by defendants admissible in evidence or was there already a recognition that being questioned by a magistrate carried too great a risk of compulsion? What other rules of evidence governed the proceedings?
