As the title says, I'd like to know how murder trials played out in 19th century British courts. I'd also love to know of any good primary sources, or even fiction, that give an accurate idea of how they worked.
A few specific questions I'd like to know the answer to:
Would a murder trial be a jury trial? If so, how were juries selected?
Were these trials open to the public?
What was the standard of proof needed to be found guilty? (Beyond a reasonable doubt? A preponderance of evidence? The judge just thought they seemed guilty?)
Did poor people have to hire an attorney, or was one appointed for them? And were they called attorneys, lawyers, or solicitors?
How quickly did sentencing tend to happen?
Was there an appeal process?
Did colonial courts operate differently than courts in England?
The Old Bailey Online is an excellent source of information about trials and crime and punishment in England at that time as well as a searchable database of the printed historical trial proceedings at the Old Bailey Courts of London.
This is an amazing primary source. You can search by year, by crime, by punishment, by name and see first hand how the trials played out. The proceedings were printed at the time, so trial records were condensed to save money on printing - so some petty crimes only get a few lines whereas others were much longer.
For a trial and appeal recoded in detail, I have an ancestor (recorded in the proceedings ) who in 1795 was tried for the crime of stealing a 20 pound banknote, in front of a jury with a judge presiding. Evidence and testimony was presented to the court.
The punishment for stealing more than 40 shillings was death. His counsel made an objection, arguing that a banknote wasn't actually money (it was more like a promissory note or a check at that time) so wasn't including in that act, and so he should not be sentenced to death. This was heard by the full complement of 12 judges (a rather special case) and the judges overruled the objection and upheld his sentence, and he was sentenced to death .
He is my direct ancestor, so obviously he wasn't actually executed. His sentence was quietly commuted to transportation and he spend years on the prison hulks on the Thames before being transported.
This shows us some interesting things about the Old Bailey Trials.
Cases were heard before a jury and presided over by a judge. The juries were made up of those from the middle class.
Defendants did have lawyers. I'm not sure how my ancestor afforded a lawyer - perhaps he used some of the £20 he stole. The lawyer is referred to as "counsel" in the proceedings.
And there was an appeals procedure.
Appeals and objections were heard by a complement of judges. The full 12 judges only heard those cases that were particularly tricky or set a precedent. My ancestors case was one of those because he was arguing the nature of money.
Many crimes were on the books as capital crimes, but the death penalty only actually tended to be used for murder or treason. The main punishment was hanging.
Women often escaped execution if they were pregnant - they were examined to make sure it was actually the case.
Sources : Old Bailey Proceedings
Cases in Crown Law: Decided by the 12 judges