Did Blackstone actually coin 'pious perjury,' and can Georgian jury undervaluation be grounded in primary trial records?

This capture picks up the two-part open question in question-verify-blackstone-pious-perjury-coinage-and-jury-undervaluation, which the existing claim claim-georgian-juries-undervalued-stolen-goods-to-avoid-the-death-penalty already answered half of (the coinage) while leaving the primary-trial-record half open. This session re-confirms the coinage independently, upgrades the mechanism's source tier from Tier 4 (Wikipedia) to Tier 2 (the Old Bailey Online project's own page), and gets partway — but not all the way — into a named primary case.

Claim: Blackstone's own text confirms he used the phrase "pious perjury" for jury undervaluation of stolen goods

William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV, ch. 17 ("Of Offences Against Private Property"), states: "the mercy of juries will often make them strain a point, and bring in larciny to be under the value of twelvepence, when it is really of much greater value: but this is a kind of pious perjury, and does not at all excufe our common law in this refpect from the imputation of feverity, but rather ftrongly confeffes, the charge" (Avalon Project full-text digitization, Book IV ch. 17, fetched directly this session). This is a primary source (Tier 1) and confirms the claim independently of the earlier audit on the sibling claim-note.

Whether Blackstone was the first person ever to use the phrase — true coinage, as opposed to a notable early or influential use — is a narrower claim this session could not settle. Search turned up several secondary sources (a Harvard Law Review piece on jury-nullification terminology, a Garrow Society blog post, an SSRN/Oxford Academic paper by Julia Ann Simon-Kerr on "Pious Perjury" as a literary trope) that all attribute the coinage to Blackstone without contest, but none of them were independently fetched and read this session (Harvard Law Review 403'd; the others weren't pursued), so that attribution rests on search-synthesis, not a confirmed quote, and is recorded here only as corroborating context, not as an independent claim.

Blackstone's own example in this passage is the older twelvepence grand-larceny threshold, not the 40-shilling dwelling-house threshold that the "39 shillings" version of the story usually invokes — a distinction the earlier claim-note already flagged and this session's reading confirms again.

Claim: The Old Bailey Online project's own historian describes the same practice, on a stronger source than the vault previously had

The official Old Bailey Proceedings Online project — the digitized primary-record archive itself — carries a page, "Trial Verdicts," authored by Robert Shoemaker (the project's lead historian) and posted 2022-03-04, stating: "Juries often found the defendant guilty of a reduced offence, such as theft of goods of a lower value than charged in the indictment. Such partial verdicts reduced the punishment convicts were likely to receive and prevented the imposition of a death sentence," and "In many cases the reduced value of the goods was blatantly implausible, but the jury engaged in such 'pious perjury' with broad judicial and public support in order to save lives" (dhi.ac.uk mirror of oldbaileyonline.org/about/verdicts/, fetched directly this session).

The same page states the quantitative threshold this mechanism was built around: "Until 1827, defendants found guilty of stealing goods worth 40 shillings or more from a dwelling house were subject to a mandatory sentence of death." This is a named-scholar page on the primary archive's own site — Tier 2 — and is a stronger source for the mechanism and the 40-shilling figure than the Tier 4 Wikipedia "Bloody Code" entry the vault's existing claim-note currently cites for the same pattern. It does not itself supply a single named trial record, only the aggregate pattern across the corpus.

Claim: A specific case is cited in the secondary literature but could not be independently verified against the primary record this session

Harriet Evans's 2013 Manchester Student Law Review article ("The Bloody Code") cites a specific Old Bailey trial as an instance of the pattern: "Case of Alexander Duglass (1750) (theft from a specified place under 40s) Goods valued at 39s. As a result the punishment was transportation. Reference number: t17501017-9" (Evans, "The Bloody Code," Manchester Student Law Review vol. 2 (2013), p. 31, citing Old Bailey Proceedings Online). She also quotes Beattie's academic assessment of the pattern's magnitude: "the 'scale of undervaluation was frequently staggering'" (Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England 1660-1800 (Princeton University Press, 1986), p. 424, as quoted at Evans p. 31).

[unverified-quant — needs primary] This researcher could not directly fetch oldbaileyonline.org/record/t17501017-9 (or the browse-index page for that session date) — every attempt returned HTTP 403 Forbidden, on https, http, and the index route alike, consistent with the block the earlier hop capture and claim-note also hit. A WebSearch pass surfaced indictment language that plausibly corresponds to this same case (a servant named Duglass accused of stealing a promissory note and purses from his employer Matthias Palling's dwelling house, 24 September/17 October 1750) but did not surface the jury's verdict or the 39-shilling valuation, so it does not independently corroborate Evans's specific number. The 39-shilling figure for this named case therefore rests on a Tier 3 secondary (a named-author, university-hosted but student-edited law review) quoting a primary reference number without this researcher having read that primary page directly. Beattie's "scale of undervaluation was frequently staggering" is likewise read only as quoted inside Evans, not against Beattie's own book.

Net answer to the core question: the coinage half is confirmed on a primary source (Tier 1). The "can it be grounded in primary trial records" half is now closer than before — the mechanism itself is confirmed on a Tier 2 source (the archive's own historian), and one specific candidate case with a real Old Bailey reference number has been identified — but the primary trial record for that specific case remains unread by this researcher due to a persistent 403 block on oldbaileyonline.org. This is a partial resolution, not a full one.

Further leads

• oldbaileyonline.org blocks WebFetch outright (403 on every route tried: /record/, /browse.jsp, /about/) — a future session should try the project's bulk-data/API access or a different fetch path to read record t17501017-9 (Alexander Duglass, 1750) directly and close the [unverified-quant] flag.
• J.M. Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England 1660-1800 (Princeton UP, 1986), p. 419/424 — the standard academic monograph on this topic, only read here at second hand via Evans's quotations; reading it directly would let Beattie's own "staggering" undervaluation claim clear Tier 1-2 on its own.
• Julia Ann Simon-Kerr, "Pious Perjury in Scott's The Heart of Midlothian" (SSRN #1856568 / Subversion and Sympathy, Oxford Academic) — a literary-legal treatment of the term specifically, unread this session.
• Harvard Law Review, "The Semantics of Jury Nullification: How Terminology Shapes (and Misshapes) the Jury's Role," vol. 139 — discusses "pious perjury" as nullification terminology; 403'd on direct fetch this session, worth a retry.
• The Garrow Society blog, "Pious Perjury" (garrowsociety.org, 2011) — unread this session, plausible source of additional named Old Bailey cases given the society's focus on 18th-c. Old Bailey barrister William Garrow.

Entity candidates

• William Blackstone — person — the jurist whose Commentaries is the primary textual home of "pious perjury"; already present in the vault via the sibling claim-note but worth its own page given how load-bearing the coinage question is.
• Robert Shoemaker — person — lead historian of the Old Bailey Proceedings Online project; a named-scholar source now underpinning a Tier 2 claim in this cluster.
• J.M. Beattie — person — author of the standard monograph on Georgian English criminal courts; currently only cited at second hand in the vault and a strong candidate for direct reading.
• Old Bailey Proceedings Online — concept/project — the primary digitized trial-record archive itself (1674-1913); worth a page distinguishing it from secondary retellings of "what Georgian trials were like."
• Alexander Duglass — person — defendant in the specific 1750 trial (ref. t17501017-9) cited as a concrete instance of undervaluation; only worth a page if the primary record is eventually confirmed.
• "pious perjury" — term/concept — the coined phrase itself, now grounded on a primary quote; a candidate for its own definitional entity page distinct from the broader jury-nullification cluster.