The crowded courtroom was absolutely silent as the 12 all white and all men took their seats at the jury box. Chief Justice Albert Mason, one of the presiding judges in the murder case, asked Charles I. Richards, the foreman, to rise. Mr. Richards was asked to read the verdict. “Not guilty”, replied the foreman. Even though the circumstantial and physical evidence pointed to Lizzie Borden guilty of killing her step-mother and father, the all-male jury, men of some financial means, could not fathom that a woman who is well bred and a Sunday school teacher could possibly do such a heinous crime (Linder 7). Today juries are much more diverse. Men, women, and people from diverse backgrounds are called to jury duty. Although the origin of the jury system is not clear, history has shown that William the Conqueror from Normandy introduced a similar system to England around 1066 CE (Judiciary of Vermont 1). After the American Revolutionary War, the jury system became the American ideal of justice. This essay will explore the history of the American jury system and illustrate how it has evolved over the course of the American history. The first American jury system began with the Pilgrims as early as 1620. In fact, the first jury trial was held in Massachusetts in 1630 (History of the Jury System in Massachusetts 1). In this trial, John Billington was on trial for the murder of John Newcomin. John Billington was found guilty and sent to the gallows. In 1641, Massachusetts determined that all “free men could serve on two juries in a year” (History of the Jury System in Massachusetts 2). Anyone who refused to serve on jury duty would be fined. This continues to be the consequence even today. It is important to note that “fre... ... middle of paper ... ...males to be on a jury. However, this was a rare occurrence and not until 1979 in the ruling of Common Wealth V. Edward J. Soars did a judge rule against any practice of deliberately not allowing African Americans from serving on a jury (The Long Road to Justice 2). The first woman, Eliza Stewart, was one of five women in Laramie Wyoming to be called to serve on a jury in 1870. Citizens of the United States are given the right to a fair trial. Over the course of the development of the American jury system, citizens are allowed to the right to meet one’s accuser, be represented by his/her peers and protection from being tried more than once on any convicted crime. The jury system has evolved from a representation of all white men to both men and women from very diverse backgrounds. This is important if one is going to be tried in his/her community of peers.
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
The evidence between witnesses seeing Lizzie buy poison, washing a brown stained dress, her inconsistencies in the alibis, and her lacking of emotion all pointed to Lizzie Borden’s guilt. Jacob applied society’s outlook on an 1800’s American women as frail, feeble-minded, morally driven individuals who are incapable of a planned murder, to support her argument that Lizzie, no matter how guilty she may have been, would not be convicted of murder. Convicting Lizzie of murder meant opposing the established woman stereotypes which endangered the cohesive mindset of
Over 80 million Americans alive today have been called to jury duty at some point in their lives (Henley 5). Out of these 80 million individuals, roughly 30% (or 24 million) have been eliminated from the jury selection process due to the use of peremptory challenges (5). According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a peremptory challenge is a challenge that “need not be supported by any reason.” Although these challenges are commonplace in today’s courts, several Supreme Court cases have questioned the constitutionality of their place in the legal system. This paper will explore the history of peremptory challenges, theories behind them, a few pertinent cases, and reform progress.
...nt just because of the color of their skin. There should be stricter guidelines on the members of a jury, for example, each jury panel should include at least three members of any minority. This would help alleviate the racial tension felt by a defendant being tried by an all-white jury, as well as discard the conviction of people based on race.
system as essential for ensuring a democratic and fair trial procedure. As rights and the jury
Have you ever heard of a jury system? The jury system was created in the 1400,s. This so called jury system was to help trails make a decision during a case. The jury picks 12 ordinary people to help on a task. There only two reasons why people might support trial by jury 1 is that they get a better understanding or a better view point. The system came from great britain. they‘re terms in the jury such as pool-eligible citizen who summons to serve as jurors. Acquitted - which the person can't be tried for the same crime. Verdict - the decision. The task is to ask whether the jury works as well now as it did now can 12 ordinary people really make the best decision.
Serving on a jury is a civic duty and an American tradition. However, some people view jury duty as a chore or as an event that negatively interrupts their lives. Some independent studies have shown that even jury duty has a devastating effect on married life. Due to this and other extraneous situations, there are only a few people who actually want to serve on a jury. This may lead to efforts by potential jurors to, in some way get out of their duty in a jury. What we know of as the current jury duty system should be changed so citizens are not forced to serve in this capacity and can still be regarded as a responsible civilian. As per the status quo, a trial jury is a constitutional right, a jury of ones peers or equals. However, ordinary people with little or no formal knowledge of the law should not be allowed to make a decision that would change a person's life.
The importance of a jury makes it necessary to understand its function, strengths and weaknesses in a criminal matter. Both the state and federal courts follow the same procedure in impaneling the jury. Most states do not accord minors the right to jury trial in court proceedings related to juvenile delinquency. The jury essentially hears the evidence presented against the defendant and potential defenses. It will then weigh the evidence and ultimately determine if the evidence satisfies the criminal offenses that the defendant has been charged, beyond any reasonable doubt. Numerous and varied rules often surround the jury. The jury mainly focuses on criminal cases because these cases put a person’s liberty at risk. Defendants do not have a right to jury trial if their jail term does not exceed six months. All jurors need to recognize the fact that jury service is a critical duty of citizenship. They may also decide questions that involve crimes for which a trial judge fine, place on probation, or confine defendant to prison. Nevertheless, a jury does not play any role in sentencing, but instead leaves it upon the trial judge to make this decision following all the submissions made by both sides. Overall, the court system must rely upon a jury for the protection of liberty, life, and the pursuit of
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
The right to a trial by jury is one of the most fundamental concepts on which the American justice system rests. It had been in the English common law practice for several centuries and the American founders deemed in necessary to continue the practice and draft it into the United States Constitution. Prior to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guaranteed trial by jury for all crimes except impeachment. In 1968 the Supreme Court solidified this right in Duncan v. Louisiana stating that juries are a necessary check to g...
“His or her view could be vital in shifting the direction of the discussions. When there are ambiguities or conflicting positions within the group, he or she is the one entitled to resolve these (Ramesh, 1993).” Studies have indicated that the leader of the group is usually upper class and male, there is a lower incidence of women and minorities that are picked as the leader of the group, and it has been shown that even when the other jurors do not have any idea of their social or financial status, they will pick this type of person with subconscious cues (Ramesh,
Our current trial by jury system was originally adopted from Anglo-Saxon English common law. Prior to juries, the United States had much more rudimentary methods that were in affect, such as bench trials. A bench trial consists of solely the judge determining the final verdict, versus a jury possessing that responsibility. Proceeding with a trial by jury assures that there will be a margin of error, simply due to the fact that the jurors are human, and are susceptible to human fallibility. Whether the jury is cognizant of it or not, emotions such as pre-determined bias and favoritism can impede or bring the case to a halt all together. According to Andy Leipold, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois College of Law, the number of jury trial conviction rates have increased from 75 percent in 1946 to 84 percent from 1989 to 2002 (Krause). This sudden anomaly can be attributed to the influx of uneducated jurors, the increased cost of proceeding to trial, and improper juror selection.
There will be three primary issues to analyze and prepare for, the first of which is the preliminary examination of potential jurors (sometimes mistakenly referred to as jury selection) (Sales & Snuggs 1978). While the process of selecting jurors takes place, many thought-provoking questions arise. Are the jurors influenced by the appearance of the defendants? Does the defendant’s social class have an effect on the jurors? How persuadable are the jurors? Does the judge’s assessment determine the jurors end-decision? Are most jury’s made of the defendant’s peers? Will the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or religion lead to prejudice? How does a jury member of corresponding race alter one’s decision making? Does physical attractiveness have some sway in the juror’s view of the defendant? (Baron & Branscombe, 2012) These are questions we want to review when interviewing potential jurors during the case for ABC Law Firm.
The intervening decades have produced substantial changes that could, and probably do, have a bearing on the ability of juries to carry out the tasks assigned to them. The jury has come a long way since the Chicago Jury Project found that upper-class men dominate deliberations. Jury panels are now more representative of the population, were minorities and women have been brought into the jury room. These groups now appear to participate in jury deliberations and influence jury verdicts as much as their white, male counterparts. Changes have occurred in the nature of cases that are tried to juries, their complexity, and their length. Substantive laws have been altered, such as shifts from contributory to comparative negligence and the verdict of guilty but mentally ill. The kinds of evidence that juries hear have also evolved: Advances in technologies have increased the use of scientific evidence; and lawyers have become increasingly intricate in developing multiple theories of causality. The makeup of the jury, the evidence, and the context in which it operates today is very different from when the Project’s data were
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members