Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of a jury in a criminal trial
Role of jurors in the crown court
History of trial by judge and jury essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of a jury in a criminal trial
The Process of Choosing Jurors and Their Role The right to trial by jury can be traced back to Magna Carta (The Great Charter of Liberties, 1215) and the independence of the jury from the judge was established in Bushell's Case (1670). In criminal cases, the jury make the decision whether the defendant is guilty or not guilt. However, this is approximately only 3% of all crimes, and these are heard in the Crown Court. In civil cases, the jury decide if the claimant has proved their case and the amount of damages (compensation). Nevertheless, it is a right in only four types of civil case, which are: defamation over £10,000, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and fraud. In other civil cases it is discretionary. To be on a jury you need to qualify. To qualify for jury service a person must be aged between 18 and 70, registered on the electoral roll, and they must have lived in the UK for at least five years since the age of 13. People are ineligible for jury service if they are suffering from certain mental disorders, if they are part of the judiciary and/or linked to others concerned with the administration of justice, and finally, if they are a member of the Clergy. Those with certain criminal convictions, and those currently on bail in criminal proceedings are automatically disqualified for jury service for 10 years, for example, people that have served any part of a sentence of imprisonment. Certain individuals are disqualified for life, say if they have served life imprisonment or to a term longer than five years. There are people that are excused of jury service have to either be aged 65-70 years old, ... ... middle of paper ... ...ession of video sequence, and in addition to this, the more recent trial such as the Ian Huntley case. Jurors may not understand the case that they are trying. The Runciman Commission (1992) informed us that just under 10% of jurors admitted difficulty with a case. The juries usually have no legal knowledge or training. A disadvantage linked to this is that there is no intelligence test required. A person may not have to be “intellectual” to be on a jury, but surely a certain amount of intelligence is required for understanding of trials. Other disadvantages include the jury having a financial interest in the length of trials, that “nobbling” may occur, whereby the jury are bribed or threatened, and finally that it is a slow and expensive process, with 12 people needing expenses during the time the trial is on.
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
Jury duty is the obligation to serve on a jury. There are many reasons for being excused if summoned, here are some: having no public or private transportation or having to exceed 1 ½ hours to travel to the trial (http://www.courti…); if you are under 18 or older than 70 (choose not to serve), or if you are not a US resident with a home in the state (http://www.cga …); if you cannot speak or understand English; or is a constitutional officer, a family support magistrate, a judge, or a member of the general assembly (http://www.cga …). After being selected for jury duty, one is at risk of jury tampering which is a crime where someone attempts to influence the jury via means other than those presented during the trial (http://le...
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.
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.
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.
First, when individuals are appointed for a jury, several individuals will do anything to not be selected for the trial. For instance, my father has conveyed he was indisposed or he could not afford to miss work. Moreover, most individuals do not perceive being a juror as an honor being as a citizen, instead they see it as a burden. A substantial influence on this position is the remuneration, because individuals are missing work to serve. On average, an individual who is selected to be a juror makes about 30 to 40 dollars a day, a fraction of when he or she is working. For this
As long as you are a U.S. citizen and of eighteen years of age, and registered in your residing county to vote, random selection based on drivers licenses are summoned for jury duty to serve the community. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law. Jury nullification takes place when jurors acquit a defendant who is factually guilty because they disagree with the law as written. Jury nullification also occurs when a jury convicts a defendant because it condemns the defendant or his actions, even though the evidence at trial showed that he technically didn’t break any law.
The modern US version of a jury derived from ancient English law. It is said in the early 11th century, William the Conqueror brought a form of a jury system from Normandy that became the basis for early England’s juries. It was constructed of men who were sworn by oath to tell the king what they knew. King Henry II then expanded on the idea by using a group of white men with good morals to not only judge the accused, but also to investigate crimes. King Henry II had panels of 12 everyday, law abiding men; this aspect of it is much like modern juries. The difference is that these early jurors were “self-informing”. This means that they were expected to already have knowledge of the facts that would be presented in court prior to the trial. King Henry II’s first jurors were assigned the job of resolving the land disputes that were occurring in England. ...
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
Trial by Jury was first introduced during the reign of King Henry II as a mechanism to uncover the King’s rights, but it wasn’t until King Henry III that the jury was molded into a body of witnesses to call on their knowledge. Presently, our jury system is a body of witnesses that determine the guilt or innocence grounded upon a presentation of facts and evidence. The current structure of trial by jury is not sufficiently democratic. Jury panels are not selected democratically, but instead are chosen through a process call “voir dire” where attorneys and the judge ask a series of questions to establish the “impartiality” of the potential juror. This aspect of jury selection rejects the democratic notion that everyone is equally qualified to rule. The unanimity of the verdict is another key component of trial by juries that is not appropriately democratic because it forces people to fall under the coercion of others. This feature discards the fundamentals of democratic rule, which is a majority rule. These aspects of trial by jury do not ensure the effectiveness of a trial and actually hinder the possibility for a fair verdict. With the increasing number of trials all over the United States, reform of these components are necessary to guarantee the just and democratic ruling of trials.
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...
For example, the third juror states in his monologue “Yeah, well I've got one. He's twenty. We did everything for that boy… When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid.”(page 18) This quote alone proves that juror number eight
Although it is a cartoon, it is a really accurate image of what most people on juries can be like. The first cartoon is a jury full of people and how their minds are wandered off onto other things rather than the case they are assigned to. This may not be true to everyone who has ever been on a jury but it is a problem that I’m sure most juries have. When was the last time anyone has ever been excited to be on a jury? In my experience being on a court jury was a bad thing, it was forced upon and the people that had to go wanted to do whatever it took to get them out of there as quick as possible. So why should we rely on the decisions of people who don’t even want to be there? In the same document, cartoon two, it says “we, the jury, find the defendant to be as guilty as he looks.”, this really shocked me because I never really gave a thought on what if a jury is biased or judgemental. It is a possibility that many courts face and it is unfair to those involved in a
juror including race and sex. Part of the reasoning behind the right to a jury
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members