Juror's Fair Trial

H7: There will be a statistically significant difference between the attitudes of Franklin Pierce University Students who are unwilling to be a juror and who are willing to be a juror in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial (Spearman’s rank order correlation)

He is polite and makes a point of speaking with proper English grammar. He is the fourth to ultimately vote not guilty

Courts do not favor research conducted on student samples. Currently, the courts do not use a majority of published articles on jury studies because the studies are based on sample sizes consisting of college students. Juries feel that due to this the study is not generalizable and the results are not useful. However this results in useful data and research findings that could help shape the efficiency of courts being dismissed. Some of the arguments that are put forth about the disadvantages of using college students are that in the real world they only make up a very small percentage of what actual jurors are made up of. Real jurors would consist of members from varying age groups, educational backgrounds, and socioeconomic status. Student samples on the other hand consist of a small age range and homogenous educational background and similar socioeconomic status. In addition, college students are more susceptible to pressures from their peers and hence would pick a verdict of guilty or not guilty based on what they believe their peers would pick as opposed to what they actually feel is

In trials like that of Casey Anthony, the mother arrested and charged with killing her two-year-old daughter Caylee, the popularity and widespread coverage of the case definitely influenced how citizens across the country believed Anthony should be sentenced (Document D). Anyone who saw one news story on the case that was then called to the jury probably already had formed their opinion on the status of Anthony’s innocence, without reviewing any court evidence. Consequently, their predisposed opinion, similar to the cats’ on the jury in Cartoon 3 of Document E, could have resulted in a weighted outcome. Also, the fear of a “wrong decision” made by the jury could have motivated a juror to vote solely for the outcome most popularly desirable. For example, Document D quotes Janine Gonzalez, a nearby member of Anthony’s community, as saying “She (Casey Anthony) better move and move to a faraway place.” Even though, in the end, Anthony was declared innocent, the fear of her life as well as the possible violence that could occur after the verdict could have been enough to sway a juror to convict her just to satisfy a popular

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

All pleas and jury verdicts at all Crown Courts 2006–08 by defendant ethnicity (at charge level) 61

Should we let tyranny abound in the courts by removing juries? Certainly not. The guarantee of trial by jury was included in the Constitution in order to protect American citizens against judicial abuse of power. This protection was delineated in the Bill of Rights with the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, which promise a defendant a speedy trial and a jury in both criminal and civil cases. It is certainly possible to find fault with the system of trial by jury and specific examples of when it has failed. However, the basic protection that a jury trial provides should never be relinquished, as it is the best protection for the individual from tyrannical actions by the government.

Juror no. 2, 5, 9 and 11 can be described as a person who has low extroversion. In other word, they are called an introvert. These jurors portray a quiet, shy, soft spoken, polite and humble personalities. They don’t talk much during the discussion and sometimes they does not even have their own opinion or nervous about expressing their opinions. As a result, they did not contribute much in the discussion.

Pope Innocent III “ forbade priestly involvement in ordeals—thus taking away their holy sanction [and] in 1215, a jury system was loosely in place in Norman England. In this system, the king’s court chose twelve persons to testify as to what they knew about the facts of a case or the character of the parties involved” (The American Trial Jury). Since its establishment in 1215, problems have arisen regarding the jury system across the world. Foremost, the rise of technology engendered unjust trials and biased jurors in the 1950s, during the Sam Sheppard case. The news media released the names and telephone numbers of the jurors involved in the case and they encouraged local citizens to call the, to voice their opinions during a trial, and therefore the jury was not isolated from media outlets (The American Trial Jury). Race also generates dilemmas with the jury system, like in the case of Keith Tharpe. Woefully, he was on trial for murder and convicted solely because of a racist juror who referred to him as a derogatory name for blacks (A Black Man Convicted By a Racist Juror is About To Be Executed). Likewise, the jury system is flawed due to a rise in juror misconduct. In the year 2009, during the court case United States v. Bristol-Martir, a juror conducted illicit research on the case and was subsequently disqualified as a result of her immoral actions (Saltzburg, Dealing With Juror

Every second, there are millions of lawsuits taking places in the United States. There is a question that always needed to be asked: is it a fair trial? The answer depends on all kinds of variables, such as race, education, poverty, age, gender and so on. A jury selection always needs to consider and assess different variables. In addition, in a jury selection, the lawyers and the judge need to eliminate different bias in order to proceed with a fair trail. In the legal system, a jury selection is also referred as voir dire process, which originally translated to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth. According to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution provides the defendant in a criminal trial with the right to “ an impartial jury” (Benforado

Even though a little more of felony convictions are handled by juries, some attorneys perspectives encourage a trial by jury, arguments can be made in favor for jury trials that reinforce the risk for a negative outcome is low. Jury trial practices have evolved depending on the state, some states permit “jurors to take notes) (308) “Other practices, such as providing at least one written copy of instruction and providing guidance on conducting deliberations, are also common in state courts.”(308-309. To minimize the risk of bias interpretation of judgment upon the alleged crime, attorneys try to play toward the juror’s conscience. If they are fully aware of what their findings mean to the defendant and they do not consider all facts by the

making them invisible in this whole process. A jury cannot truly understand the extent of the damage done if a victim, or victim’s family member/loved one, cannot explain it to them (Davis). In every state there was an absence of laws that required the victim or victim’s family to be keep properly and timely updated about the case. For example, if the offender was released on bail, if charges were changed or dropped, if there were any parole hearings, etc., the victim was usually not being notified of these changes, and if they were notified, it was after a significant amount of times passed. Which aids in the reasoning behind making it under law that the victim is to be notified in a timely manner (Davis). These undeserving people who become

In order to fulfill an individual’s constitutional right to a trial overseen by a jury of his or her peers, the process of juror selection is repeated every day in courtrooms around the country. The process is not only vital to the American justice system as a whole; for the prospective juror it is also a defining feature of their U.S. citizenship. Juror selection and the accompanying voir dire, when examined for more than its procedural parts, reveals itself to be more complex than a set of ordinary practices. The frameworks established by Emile Durkheim, Arnold Van Gennep, and Victor Turner help to separate the ritual elements present in jury duty from aspects that are more representative of “technological routine”.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.