First of all, the information the court should get from a potential juror would be basic information about them. The basic information would include their age, race, job, etcetera. Next the court finds out characteristics about them such as leadership qualities, sensitivity, arrogance, attitudes, morality, values, and perception about certain situations. Learning about their past experiences and what they like to do for fun is important, too. These characteristics will help determine how the court may perceive the potential juror. Some examples of these would included what was that person’s biggest accomplishment or if that person has ever been a manager or has directed a project. The question about the person’s feelings about the current administration could also be asked.
The following are standard questions that the court will ask potential jurors to see if any of which would keep them from being available for the whole trial:
1. Medical conditions
2. Mental conditions
3. Can you read, write and understand English?
4. Is anyone related to or associated with or worked with any of the people involved in this trial?
5. Does anyone have any beliefs that would keep them from forming a judgement against another person?
6. Does anyone know more about this case then they have just been told?
7. Can you be objective and fair to everyone involved in the trial?
8. Can you all understand and apply the law as it will be explained to you?
The following questions would be asked of each potential jury themselves:
1. First, middle, last name and their age
2. City they live in
3. Whether they are married, single, divorced, separated
4. How many children they have and their ages
5. Type of education they have and the level th...
... middle of paper ...
...urthouse on time. A late comer can hold up a trial. Wear proper clothes for jury service. Important questions are given by the judge, the lawyers, or both to make sure the selected jurors are qualified for the fair trial for the suspect or a felon. Disqualified jurors will not be allow on trial. After a satisfactory jury is selected, the jurors swear or affirm to try the case and give a true verdict according to law and evidence.” (Selected To Serve, n.d.).
Works Cited
Osowski, B. How to Learn Juror Attitudes and Characteristics Received from http://www.jamespublishing.com/articles_forms/CivilLitigation/Voir_Dire_Questions.htm
Schenkier, S. Standard Voir Dire Questions Received from http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judge/Schenkier/sisvdir.htm
Davenport A: Basic Criminal Law: The U.S. Constitution, Procedure, and Crimes. New Jersey: Prentice Hall (pg.106).
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.
After this happens, both sides of the trial select which jurors they want to represent their side with the hopes that their picks will help win the case. Voir dire occurred towards the beginning of the movie. About fifty jurors were selected to appear at the questioning but only twelve were selected to participate in the trial. The prosecuting side wanted jurors who were against gun violence, had families, and had lost a family member. The defense wanted jurors who believed in the second amendment and were all for guns. Before the questioning of the potential jurors, both sides did research on them all in order to see if they fit the criteria of what they were looking
One of the most intense group task experiences in the United States is that of serving on the jury of a death penalty case. This forces a group of complete strangers to come together and determine the fate of another’s human beings life. The court case of the State of Ohio v Mark Ducic, was of no exception. Ducic a 47 year old drug addict white male, was accused of committing a double homicide. In accordance with Ohio state law, murdering more than one individual is considered a mass murder and therefore the accused is subject to the possibility of the death penalty. Ducic’s victims included Barbara Davis, his domestic partner and drug addict, as well as a drug user that Ducic was an acquaintance with. The death of Davis was at first believed to be due to an overdose, but police informants identified Ducic’s voice on a recording claiming that he killed her. The other victim, the drug addict, was thought to be eliminated by Ducic for fear that he would inform the police that he killed Davis. Investigators believed that Ducic gave both victims a deathly amount of drugs that would make it appear as though they both simply overdosed. Ducic was found guilty on both occasions, yet a second trial in regards to his sentencing had to occur and another hearing had to be conducted on whether or not to remove the death penalty.
The questions should be shaped around the individual’s views and also his or her ability to think analytically. Nevertheless, without these important questions, an individual may not qualify for the job. For example, Juror #10, the Garage Owner was an individual who was prejudiced against the defendant. Juror #10 was quick to agree that the defendant is guilty because of his personal view on the defendant’s color and where he lives. By, incorporating critical thinking questions, this may assist to find individuals who do not let their own personal views cloud their judgement and their decision
The reason for these reactions is due to the fact that jurors are all influenced by different decision making abilities. These abilities can be shaped by varying emotional reactions to case information, jurors intelligence, their abilities to retain certain information, and of course their own personal and cultural views. As a result, jurors establish different perceptions and opinions despite all the jurors being given the same information. The procedure of applying a juror’s perception of certain views on life and how those views apply to the facts and information being presented to them in the case are the main forces behind each juror’s individual conclusions on the case. Jurors seem to rarely alter their opinions on how they feel about a certain case, but they may change their minds on how things should have been presented to them. This can be observed in the participation and comments of the jurors in this certain case.
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
They are the impartial third-party whose responsibility is to deliver a verdict for the accused based on the evidence presented during trial. They balance the rights of society to a great extent as members of the community are involved. This links the legal system with the community and ensures that the system is operating fairly and reflecting the standards and values of society. A trial by jury also ensures the victim’s rights to a fair trial. However, they do not balance the rights of the offender as they can be biased or not under. In the News.com.au article ‘Judge or jury? Your life depends on this decision’ (14 November 2013), Ian Lloyd, QC, revealed that “juries are swayed by many different factors.” These factors include race, ethnicity, physical appearance and religious beliefs. A recent study also found that juries are influenced by where the accused sits in the courtroom. They found that a jury is most likely to give a “guilty” verdict if the accused sits behind a glass dock (ABC News, 5 November 2014). Juries also tend to be influenced by their emotions; hence preventing them from having an objective view. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involved’ (23 November 2013), 55.4 per cent of defendants in judge-alone trials were acquitted of all charges compared with 29 per cent in jury trials between 1993 and 2011. Professor Mark Findlay from the University of Sydney said that this is because “judges were less likely to be guided by their emotions.” Juries balance the rights of victims and society to a great extent. However, they are ineffective in balancing the rights of the offender as juries can be biased which violate the offender’s rights to have a fair
...nterest, then they will not be chosen. The jurors need to have a majority vote.
During my visit to the Lafourche Parish District Attorney 's Office, I heard a copious amount of information that proved to be interesting, surprising, and some of it familiar to what I already knew or had learned in class. The first speaker, Joe Soignet, assistant district attorney, gave me a sense of what actually happens in a court case, specifically the process of selecting a jury. I had an idea of how picking a jury goes because of stories from friends and family who had been called for jury duty. I knew from them that as long as you answer with very strong opinions you can get out of jury duty. What I learned in class, however, is that picking a jury can take a long time, the right to a jury trial is guaranteed by the 17th Amendment and
A jury system inquires fairness in a court case. A jury is “A group of citizens called to hear a trial of a criminal prosecution of a lawsuit, decide the factual questions of guilt or innocence or determine the prevailing party (winner) in a lawsuit and the amount to be paid, if any, by the loser” (Law.com Legal Dictionary 2014). As a jury member they are obligated to tell the truth and give an honest response. The jury system randomly selects 12 people for each court case. Once you are 18 years old and registered you can be selected for jury service. There are two categories of people who cannot serve and that is people who are excluded from the jury roll and who are exempt from jury service (NSW Government 2014). Those who are excluded are people with criminal convictions and who hold high positions in public office. Those exempted are due to their employment (NSW Government 2014). As a jury member you are expected to dress appropriately, be honest, and give fu...
There are hundreds of Americans who are selected for jury duty every day. Just like the characters many of them believe jury duty is a major conflict in their lives. They may say they do not have time to participate, which may be true, but the law will make sure you have time. As always, life and time keep going, and nobody wants to miss it. No one prefers to sit in court when they can be doing something productive but it is not going to kill them. Everyone deserves to have a jury hear them and surely they would want that for themselves.
"Know the Cases." Innocence Project. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, n.d. Web. 1 Mar 2011. .
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
Now that we have discussed the pretrial occurrences, we get into the trial portion of the court process. This is the portion of the process in which both the defense and the prosecution present their cases to the jury, the judge, and the rest of the courtroom. To select a jury, the bring in potential jurors and ask them questions,
jurors for reasons that need not be stated. Causes vary from state to state, but are