A group of lay persons of varying numbers who decide, on the basis of evidence, matters of fact in criminal and civil cases. They are usually 12 in number, although in Scotland 15 jurors sit in criminal trials. In the USA certain juries also have a role in deciding whether a person should be prosecuted for a particular crime; these juries, known as Grand Juries, have up to 23 people sitting on them. In the UK jurors are chosen from the electoral role and must be aged between 18 and 65. In the USA great effort is taken to ensure that jurors are selected randomly from the general population; however, in certain cases a special jury may be selected to try matters of unusual importance or intricacy. In the USA there is a constitutional right to trial by jury in criminal matters where the penalty is six months or more, and also in most civil matters. In the UK serious criminal matters are tried before a jury, but juries are little used in civil cases (though certain cases such as defamation are heard before a jury in England and Wales). Also in England and Wales, an accused person has a right in certain cases to trial by jury; in Scotland no such right exists, the mode of trial being the decision of the procurator fiscal. In England and Wales a majority verdict (102) is now permitted, and many US States allow majority verdicts. In Scotland, jurors have in addition to guilty or not guilty, a third verdict of not proven, and all that is required is a simple majority of 8 to 7. Certain people are ineligible for jury service (eg members of the Judiciary and the mentally ill) or may be excused (eg MPs, doctors), or disqualified (eg if previously convicted of certain types of offence). In most jurisdictions both the prosecution and the defence are permitted to challenge a juror's suitabilty to sit in a case. A certain number of peremptory challenges are allowed without reason, and usually a limitless number of challenges for cause, such as the juror being related to the victim or the accused. In England and Wales, the judge directs the jury on questions of law, but must leave them to decide all questions of fact; however there must be a direction to acquit in criminal cases, unless the jury are convinced that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In certain parts of the world (eg Europe), juries have largely died out, and many countries including Italy, France, and Germany have abandoned the institution altogether.
A jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law.
The Petit Jury or trial jury hears the evidence in a case and decides the disputed facts and usually consists of 12 Jurors although in Scotland 15 jurors are allotted.
Overview
In most criminal justice systems and some civil cases which require a jury, panels are initially allotted at random from the adult population of the district served by the court concerned. A person who is serving on (is a member of) a jury is known as a juror.
The number of jurors must be a specified size, usually twelve, though there are fifteen in Scottish juries and in some legal systems smaller cases may require only six. Since there is always the possibility of jurors not completing the trial for health or other reasons, often some alternate jurors are nominated, who will also follow the trial (but do not take part in deciding the verdict), as a precaution in case a new juror is needed part way through the trial (most often used when the trial will be lengthy or high-profile).
Serving on a jury is normally compulsory if a citizen is chosen (exceptions and exclusions vary between jurisdictions and are discussed below). Since a jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict, there are often procedures and requirements, for instance, fluent understanding of the language, or the ability to test jurors or otherwise exclude jurors who might be perceived as less than neutral or more partial to hear one side or the other.
In common law countries such as England and the United States, the role of the jury is often described as the "finder of fact", while the Judge is seen as having the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. However, occasionally, a jury may find the defendant "not guilty" even though the facts show he violated the law if the jury thinks that the law is invalid or unjust. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the Judge makes factual rulings in addition to legal ones. In most continental European jurisdictions, the Judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted.
Actual jury law and trial procedures differ between countries.
The concept of a modern jury trial stems back at least to Magna Carta, which gave English nobles and freemen the right to be tried by a panel of their peers, rather than by summary judgment of the king or other official who often had the utter power to impose his own arbitrary judgment. If the jury in waiting is exhausted without the jury being completed the clerk of the court is required to ask the jury assembly area to send more jurors. Some systems allow argument over whether a juror's particular background or beliefs make them biased and therefore unsuitable for service on the jury. In the United States, and probably other nations, it is known that some citizens deliberately exploit this to get out of jury duty (for example, by mentioning knowledge of legal concepts).
Verdicts
In general, there are no restrictions on how a jury may proceed to reach such a verdict, and no set time limit.
Juries are traditionally expected to reach a unanimous verdict through their deliberations. If this is not possible after an extended period of deliberations, jurisdictions vary as to whether they will accept a majority verdict or declare a mistrial (generally, a criminal trial will require a unanimous verdict, while a civil trial may allow for less than a unanimous verdict).
Initially, a judge will usually instruct a jury not to contemplate a majority verdict. After a time, if no verdict is forthcoming, the judge may recall the jury and instruct them that he is prepared to consider one. Some jurisdictions allow majority verdicts in criminal cases if a juror becomes unfit to continue, or if a judge permits it when a jury is deadlocked.
Sometimes a jury will take a wider view than the judge's summing up, and reach a verdict influenced by or based on their view of the public interest - that is, whether they think it right, all things considered, for the defendant to be convicted of a crime.
Secrecy and independence
For juries to fulfill their role to analyze the facts of the case, there are strict rules about their use of information during the trial. Nobody involved in the trial is allowed to speak with a member of the jury, and jurors are not allowed to read news or other accounts of the trial. In order to achieve this goal in high-profile cases, some juries are sequestered either for the deliberation phase, or for the entire trial. In English law, the jury's deliberations must not be disclosed outside the jury, even after the case, and to repeat parts of them is contempt of court and can result in imprisonment.
Because of the desire to prevent undue influence on a jury, jury tampering is a serious crime, whether attempted through bribery, threat of violence, or other means.
Imposition of penalties for guilty verdicts
In the United States, some juries are also empowered to make factual findings on particular aggravating circumstances which will be used to elevate the defendant's sentence, if the defendant is convicted. allowing judges to make such findings unilaterally violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
In Canada, juries are also allowed to make suggestions for sentencing periods and at the time of sentencing, the suggestions of the jury are presented before the judge by the Crown prosecutor(s) before the sentence is handed down. The exception is the award of damages in English law libel cases, although a judge is now obliged to make a recommendation to the jury as to the appropriate amount.
Jury Nullification
In the 17th & 18th century there were a series of cases starting in 1670 with the trial of the Quaker William Penn which asserted the (de facto) right of a jury to pass a verdict contrary to the facts or law. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury to pass the verdict that the case had been "proven" and so cause an innocent man to die. Instead the jury asserted what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts and brought in the verdict of "not guilty".
Today in the United States, the jury is required to follow the law as it is explained to it by the judge and to render a judgment justified by the facts. If it reaches a conclusion contrary to the law, but based on its own beliefs as to what the law or result should be, regardless of the law, this is known as jury nullification. It has been asserted that the jury has the power to "nullify" a law it believes is unjust, by, for example, refusing to find the defendant guilty, in spite of the evidence, if it believes that a guilty verdict would be unjust. Modern American jurisprudence, however, generally does not recognize this practice and jury verdicts can be reversed if found to be based upon factors other than the established law and the facts of the case.
In the United Kingdom, a similar power exists, often called 'Jury Equity'. This can create a persuasive precedent for future cases, or render prosecutors reluctant to bring a charge - thus a jury has the power to influence the law. The trial judge directed the jury that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is" - effectively a direction to the jury to convict. In Scotland (with it own legal system) although technically the Scottish "not guilty" verdict was originally a form of jury Nullification, over time the interpretation has changed so that now the "not guilty" verdict has become the normal verdict when a jury is convinced of innocence and the "not proven" verdict is only used when the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt.
Trial procedures
France (Napoleonic code)
In France and similarly organized jurisdictions, the jury sits on an equal footing with three professional judges.
United States (Common Law)
In the United States, if no verdict can be reached by the jury (a situation sometimes referred to as a hung jury), a mistrial is declared, and the case may be retried with a newly constituted jury. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), which found Arizona's practice, having the judge (in a capital punishment trial by jury) decide between life or death sentences, to be unconstitutional, and reserved that decision for the jury. The judge can, however, overrule the jury and reduce the penalty from death to life if he or she chooses, although this has not yet occurred in an actual trial.
There is no set format for jury deliberations, and the jury will take a period of time to settle into discussing the evidence.
If a foreman is elected at the beginning, he or she will chair the discussions, and it is his or her job to try and steer the jury towards a conclusion.
In the U.S., juries are used in both criminal law and civil law trials, though they are quite different.
In criminal law, a grand jury is convened to hear only testimony and evidence to determine whether there is a case to be answered and hence whether the accused should be indicted and sent for trial. In many areas, depending upon the law, a third jury will determine what the penalty should be or recommend what the penalty should be in the penalty phase.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to jury trial in both state and federal criminal proceedings, although in practice most criminal actions in the U.S. are resolved by plea bargain. Juries are also used in many civil cases in the United States, and the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly protects the right to a jury trial in civil cases tried in the United States District Courts.
Jury selection is a rather complicated process. However, jurors can be dismissed for several reasons and many people are released from serving on a jury. Attorneys are routinely dismissed from jury duty for a number of reasons, particularly because attorneys in a community are likely to know of or have some connection with the attorneys involved in the case. Commentators often quote Dave Barry who claimed that the Sixth Amendment "states that if you are accused of a crime, you have the right to a trial before a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty"
User Comments Add a comment…