The Role of the Jury in a Crown Court For all court appearances, jurors are selected randomly, by an official at the crown court from the electoral registers. In order to be selected for a jury the person must be: between the ages of 18-70; have lived in the country for at least 5years and be registered as a parliamentary elector. In 2003 a new act was passed, The Criminal Justice Act, this meant that everybody was eligible to be called for jury service. This new act does not excuse anyone in the legal profession, justice system or the health system. The only people who don't have to serve jury service are those who are disqualified. Disqualifications include: those who have served a prison sentence of 5years or more; those who have served a prison sentence in the last 10years; those who are currently performing community service; and those who are currently on bail at the time of being called for jury service. Once a jury has been selected they have to go through a process called vetting. This process allows officials to check both the criminal and political views of each member of the jury. Every juror is checked by the police for any evidence of criminal activity and in some cases they are checked to see if their political beliefs and background may interfere with their judgement. Political vetting came to light during the 'ABC' trial, where two journalists and a soldier were in court for breech of the official secrets act. Political vetting was being checked by the police and once they were discovered a re trial was immediately ordered. The Attorney General (A.G.) is the person who decided when political vetting was allowed and his conclusions were; that it was only allowed in terrorist cases and national security issues. Any other case that wishes to have their jury politically vetted, must first gain the permission of the Attorney General. The role of the jury in a Crown Court is very important as they are the ones who have to decide
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.
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.
“Nearly 6 million voting-age Americans can’t vote in the 2016 primaries and presidential election because of various state felon disenfranchisement laws”(Green). The right to serve jury duty is also excluded from ex-felons. As a US citizen, voting-age men and women are put on a list which is pulled from the voters. This list is used to find men and women for jury duty, because they are unable to vote, the ex-felons are also restricted from attending jury duty.
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. ...
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
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...
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
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.
Today is the last day of the trial. We have heard all of the witnesses and now we know that we must deliberate. I know that some of the “witnesses” are liars. Some make valid points and I know without a doubt in my mind that Captain Preston is an innocent man and that his men were provoked. As I listened to the witnesses, here is what I came to believe: